Those who illegally downloaded Ep3 of a p2p might be SOL.
Elite Torrents had more than 133,000 members and offered 17,800 movies and software programs in the past four months, officials said. Among those titles was "Star Wars: Episode III ? Revenge of the Sith," which was available through Elite Torrents six hours before its first showing in theaters, the officials said.
The movie was downloaded more than 10,000 times in the first 24 hours.
Authorities served search warrants in 10 cities against computer users accused of being the first to offer copyright materials to other BitTorrent users on the Web site, Homeland Security's Customs and Immigration Enforcement agency said. The cities are: Austin, Texas; Erie, Pa.; Philadelphia; Wise, Va.; Clintonwood, Va.; Germantown, Wis.; Chicago; Berea, Ohio; Anthem, Ariz., and Leavenworth, Kan.
more info @
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157685,00.html
The movie was downloaded more than 10,000 times in the first 24 hours.
Authorities served search warrants in 10 cities against computer users accused of being the first to offer copyright materials to other BitTorrent users on the Web site, Homeland Security's Customs and Immigration Enforcement agency said. The cities are: Austin, Texas; Erie, Pa.; Philadelphia; Wise, Va.; Clintonwood, Va.; Germantown, Wis.; Chicago; Berea, Ohio; Anthem, Ariz., and Leavenworth, Kan.
more info @
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157685,00.html
Comments
Then the gov. that the taxpayer pays salary to, raids the taxpayer's home!
This country is going down!
If all this effort could be put towards something really useful for this country... say to catch Bin Laden...
Originally posted by iPeon
I don't care what it is, they deserve it.
Well, that's debatable. They might not deserve to be 'ripped off', but there are a lot of movies out there where the creators don't really deserve to make a profit off of it... as in everyone should ignore/boycott it.
Originally posted by skatman
Hmm... first the taxpayer funds the industry special interest industry group. Then the special interest group buys a couple of laws to screw the the very taxpayer who funded them.
Then the gov. that the taxpayer pays salary to, raids the taxpayer's home!
This country is going down!
If all this effort could be put towards something really useful for this country... say to catch Bin Laden...
Shouldn't this be in the political forum? Heh. That last statement is kind stupid though... because you can only have so many people working on things before efficiency suffers due to all the time spent on making sure that everyone is managed/supervised and up-to-date, etc. That said, we shouldn't ignore one area of the law just because people are breaking another. "Shouldn't we stop going after thieves? I mean those cops could be put to better use by finding murderers... No one is killed by a burglary!"
In this case, your beef should be with the *AAs and Congress for creating the law, not the FBI for enforcing it. Your argument should be more along the lines of, "Congress shouldn't be creating new laws that put extra burdens on the FBI when they have their hands tied enough as it is with things like finding Bin Laden."
Originally posted by pyr3
but there are a lot of movies out there where the creators don't really deserve to make a profit off of it...
So the justification for stealing here is that it's OK to steal from someone whose works "don't really deserve to make a profit"?
Originally posted by iPeon
So the justification for stealing here is that it's OK to steal from someone whose works "don't really deserve to make a profit"?
Read the whole post. I said they don't deserve to make a profit off of the movie, but I said by having people boycott the movie? I can use stuff out of context too...
Originally posted by iPeon
So the justification for stealing here is that it's OK to steal from someone...?
Wow... That's a really stupid thing so say there iPeon... [/sarcasm]
I in no way advocate downloading movies illegally. I'm just saying that movie makers don't have a 'right' to profit either. They are subject to market forces like any other business. Saying:
I don't care what it is, they deserve it.
Makes it sound like they deserve to get money just because they made a movie. I'm not going to donate money do them just because they made a movie. Make a good movie and I'll pay you to see it, otherwise I'll just ignore you and your movie.
Originally posted by iPeon
So the justification for stealing here is that it's OK to steal from someone whose works "don't really deserve to make a profit"?
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Originally posted by Gon
Copyright infringement is not theft.
It depends which country you are in.....
Originally posted by Thereubster
It depends which country you are in.....
You mean it depends if it is a crime. I don't know of a country where it would be equated with theft - if you do, I'd like to hear where.
That last statement is kind stupid though... because you can only have so many people working on things before efficiency suffers due to all the time spent on making sure that everyone is managed/supervised and up-to-date, etc.
I wouldn't worry about that. We're a long way from the point you're refering to.
And before you start refering to somebody's statements as "stupid", it would be wise to work on the grammar.
The reason for the current mess is the fact that DMCA is lopsided. It ignores reality and laws of nature. That's why in reality it did't, doesn't, and will never work.
The only way is to rewrite it.
Originally posted by Gon
Copyright infringement is not theft.
It's all semantics. If I wasn't going to ever see the movie unless I got it for free, then maybe downloading it isn't taking any money from the movie studios, but if I was going to go see it, but I decided that downloading it was even better than the $9 ticket price, then that's 'stealing' the $9 I would have paid had I not illegally downloaded it. It's akin to going to buy the tickets and seeing that they are $9 and saying, "Hey! I have a better idea! I'll sneak in through the emergency exit to see the movie!"
In the end, all of this 'profits I would have had' business is starting to get into the realm of 'Minority Report' though. "We're arresting you for murder because you're going to kill someone tomorrow." Or "If you had carried on a conversation with Person X for 2 more minutes, then he wouldn't have tried to cross the street in from of that bus that ran him over. We're charging you with manslaughter."
Anyone who borrows a cd from a friend is stealing, aren't they?
Anyone who borrows a book to read is stealing aren't they?
Just because the above 'acts of theft' would take too much manpower to stop they move to the next big thing, internet piracy, and everyone goes "oh you are a bad person, I have never done something comparable to that." Even if they have done something such as mentioned above.
Originally posted by pyr3
It's all semantics. If I wasn't going to ever see the movie unless I got it for free, then maybe downloading it isn't taking any money from the movie studios, but if I was going to go see it, but I decided that downloading it was even better than the $9 ticket price, then that's 'stealing' the $9 I would have paid had I not illegally downloaded it.
It's not theft, it's not just semantics and you're employing a contorted argument to try to rationalize it as such.
In addition, copyrights are granted by the public to the copyright holder for a limited time for the benefit of the public. The public has the original right and only gives up a limited part of it to benefit the public, not the copyright holder. Copyright holders are rampantly abusing this limited right the public has granted them. Parts of the public are just acting on their natural right in the face of copyright abuse by copyright holders and increasingly backwards copyright legislation aimed at contorting the purpose of copyright.
It's not theft, it's not just semantics and you're employing a contorted argument to try to rationalize it as such.
If I define 'asdfg' as 'to affect the profits of a company through piracy rather than paying for a product', then I can say 'p2p users are asdfg'ing the MPAA'. It's all in how you view the definition of 'stealing'. If someone says 'he got robbed' about a shot in a basketball game, do you run out onto the court with a 'Grammar Police' collared shirt and a whistle, yelling about violations of grammar because no robbery actually took place?
In addition, copyrights are granted by the public to the copyright holder for a limited time for the benefit of the public. The public has the original right and only gives up a limited part of it to benefit the public, not the copyright holder. Copyright holders are rampantly abusing this limited right the public has granted them. Parts of the public are just acting on their natural right in the face of copyright abuse by copyright holders and increasingly backwards copyright legislation aimed at contorting the purpose of copyright.
So... "I've granted you this right for a limited time. Even though that time isn't up, I'm taking it back because I want it back, so screw you!" Is this what you are saying? I agree that copyright law currently is crap, but you should lobby your representatives to make changes, not start some 'information wants to be free man! It's wrongful imprisonment or something to own a copyright so I should be able to download music that I didn't pay for' crap. Sorry, I just get irked because people come into a copyright discussion with the sole purpose of just arguing the usage of the word 'theft'. And the public DOES give up the rights to the copyright holder to benefit the copyright holder. By benefitting the copyright holder it encourages people to create content that they will hold the copyrights to, thereby benefitting the public with the new content. But like a lot of people have stated in such discussions before, people were creative long before copyrights. If copyrights go away people won't automatically stop creating content and just sit at home, staring at a wall.
Originally posted by pyr3
If I define 'asdfg' as 'to affect the profits of a company through piracy rather than paying for a product', then I can say 'p2p users are asdfg'ing the MPAA'. It's all in how you view the definition of 'stealing'. If someone says 'he got robbed' about a shot in a basketball game, do you run out onto the court with a 'Grammar Police' collared shirt and a whistle, yelling about violations of grammar because no robbery actually took place?
But we are talking about law and what the law says, not arbitrary definitions made up on the fly.
Even though that time isn't up, I'm taking it back because I want it back, so screw you!" Is this what you are saying?
The time will never be up if it keeps getting extended by legislators elimintating the intent of copyright law in favor of copyright holders. However, it's not as simple as you need for your argument.
'information wants to be free man! It's wrongful imprisonment or something to own a copyright so I should be able to download music that I didn't pay for' crap.
Bring you side of the discussion up a couple maturity notches. Information is naturally free and the public gives up the right for a limited time to benefit the public. From the US constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Sorry, I just get irked because people come into a copyright discussion with the sole purpose of just arguing the usage of the word 'theft'.
I'm deeply involved professionally in copyright and issues in copyright, so don't patronize my involvement in the issue. When you make errors, expect them to be pointed out to you.
And the public DOES give up the rights to the copyright holder to benefit the copyright holder. By benefitting the copyright holder it encourages people to create content that they will hold the copyrights to, thereby benefitting the public with the new content.
The goal of copyright is not to benefit copyright holders, it's to encourage new content through a mechanism that benefits creators. It's a subtle but important difference.
But like a lot of people have stated in such discussions before, people were creative long before copyrights. If copyrights go away people won't automatically stop creating content and just sit at home, staring at a wall.
Very true.
However, it's unfortunate that you falsely frame the debate as copyright/no copyright instead of abuse of copyright/sane copyright. It's not black and white and you'd do yourself a favor if you were able to understand the subtleties and subsequently correctly interpret what other are saying.
But we are talking about law and what the law says, not arbitrary definitions made up on the fly.
The point is that we are arguing about the issue. No one is arguing that 'copyright infringement is stealing.' The original argument was about whether the movie companies 'deserve' money.
The time will never be up if it keeps getting extended by legislators elimintating the intent of copyright law in favor of copyright holders. However, it's not as simple as you need for your argument.
That's another story. As it stands right now, it is X years until copyright is up. If you don't want X years to grow, then talk to your representatives in Congress. It's like you make a contract and you keep extending it. That doesn't give you the right to break it. Just stop extending it and let it lapse. I'll restate it. You need to tell the legislators to stop extending it. You can't say, they will extend it again in the future, so I now have the right to download copyrighted movies because I don't agree with extending it.
I'm deeply involved professionally in copyright and issues in copyright, so don't patronize my involvement in the issue. When you make errors, expect them to be pointed out to you.
I'm not patronizing you, but when someone bumps in with 'copyright is not stealing,' from my point of view it's someone derailing the argument for the sake of some slight satisfaction that they have better grammar than everyone else.
The goal of copyright is not to benefit copyright holders, it's to encourage new content through a mechanism that benefits creators. It's a subtle but important difference.
I realize the subtle difference of the goal of copyright vs. the means which it uses, but I was trying to point out that the copyright holders get a benefit from it too. You made it seem like the public was the only one that benefitted from copyright.
Very true.
However, it's unfortunate that you falsely frame the debate as copyright/no copyright instead of abuse of copyright/sane copyright. It's not black and white and you'd do yourself a favor if you were able to understand the subtleties and subsequently correctly interpret what other are saying.
I'm not trying to frame the argument as 'copyright' vs 'no copyright'. I'm pointing out that copyright is there to supplement and encourage creativity, not as the sole motivator behind creativity. The **AAs would have you view copyright as something that is that last bastion of creativity, and they are the only ones left manning the fort as file traders destroy all the creativity left in the world.
Originally posted by pyr3
That's another story. As it stands right now, it is X years until copyright is up. If you don't want X years to grow, then talk to your representatives in Congress. It's like you make a contract and you keep extending it. That doesn't give you the right to break it. Just stop extending it and let it lapse.
That's all well and good.. if you submit to the power of the Congress in the first place. (Or similar institutions. I am not a US citizen.)
I'm not patronizing you, but when someone bumps in with 'copyright is not stealing,' from my point of view it's someone derailing the argument for the sake of some slight satisfaction that they have better grammar than everyone else.
I bumped in because you just called me a thief. Do you do that to people IRL? I doubt you do, because a great many of them would hurt you, whether or not you explain how that is 'purely semantical'.
You could have replied that you used the term loosely, and that would have been that, no problem. Instead you chose to further demonstrate your inconsiderateness in three more posts.
Originally posted by Gon
That's all well and good.. if you submit to the power of the Congress in the first place. (Or similar institutions. I am not a US citizen.)
I'm operating under the assumption that iPeon is a US citizen (from the context of his posts). If not, then he (or you) has to answer to the respective laws of his country. That said, "I don't like the law so I'll just break it," isn't an effective way of instituting a change in the law. And usually people that break the law to prove a point are happy to accept the consequences because it's usually some sort of political statement which is more effective when people see the action vs. the consequences (or how far from common sense a law can be interpreted to be by the judicial system).
I bumped in because you just called me a thief. Do you do that to people IRL? I doubt you do, because a great many of them would hurt you, whether or not you explain how that is 'purely semantical'.
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, if you are participating in it and the laws of your country say it's illegal then you are technically a criminal. If that is the case then you are a criminal, but not a thief. This is all by definition. It's not some sort of personal attack on you.
And to you 'irl' example, I'll pose my own. Suppose that you see a huge muscular dude with a face that looks like it was run over by a truck. You might not tell him that he's ugly for fear of getting beat up, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
This started out as an argument about the issues, I thought. I didn't think that people were going to take everything to imply indirectly personal attacks against them. Referring to copyright infringement as stealing was partly just a way to get my message across. I'm not blasting "YOU ARE ALL THIEVES AND YOU SHOULD BURN IN THE BOWELS OF HELL BECAUSE YOU STOLE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA!" all over the forum. I wasn't even referring to *you* either. I was referring to a hypothetical person.
You could have replied that you used the term loosely, and that would have been that, no problem. Instead you chose to further demonstrate your inconsiderateness in three more posts.
Ok. I was using the term rather loosely. My responses were that way because I'm used to arguing with people that come at me with arguments about "Copyright is not stealing and anyone that says so is a mouthpiece for the MPAA/RIAA because they are trying to make people think that copyright infringement is that same as stealing millions of dollars from the bank." And in some ways, I view the whole 'stealing' vs 'copyright infringement' argument in the same light as the 'garbage man' vs 'sanitation engineer' or 'secretary' vs 'administrative assistant' job title argument.