200,000 U.S. BitTorrent Users Sued

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

superhighperf

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2006
8
0
18,510
i will say pirating media should be illegal. no doubt. but how far down this rabbit whole do we go?

obviously using tivo, a dvr or even a vhs recorder to record media is not illegal. is it?

if i record a movie or concert and then watch it later is that illegal? i don't think it is. we could be talking about the same exact movie or song but if i record it and archive it i don't think i am breaking the law. i have done this with many movies and later put them on dvd with no thought to being sued. i think the only way i would have a legal issue is if i rebroadcast that content? but sports bars do that all the time.

i have watched games that were not live and watched as the bar tender skips through the commercials. that bar is actually making money off of the recorded media. they do not own the rights to the broadcast and are making it publicly available. i have not heard of one case where some one has asked them to stop doing that.

what troubles me is that these legal groups are going after individuals as if they were some big entity like the pirate bay. the pirate bay made lots of stuff publicly available and many people took advantage of that. thousands and thousands of people. how is that the same as a guy who pirates a movie using bittorrent and seeds it to 2x. that means that he got a copy of the movie and shared it with two people. how is that the same? how is that publicly available if he only shared it with two other pirates? why should he be sued for thousands of dollars? essentially he stole three copies of a movie but is being sued like he stole thousands. what if the two people he shared the movie with are also being sued? the copyright holder would be getting paid many times for a single copy. once from the guy who shared it and another from the guy who made a copy and so on....

there are many more scenarios where i can compare pirating with a vcr or sharing movies with friends or..... the current laws are too vague and need to reflect the actual processes of the alleged violator. until then this is a huge joke and will continue to be a joke until someone figures out a way to enforce these laws justly.
 

crisan_tiberiu

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
26
0
18,580
@ Superhighperf,
i agree with you, u r totaly right. Making a copy of a movie via VCR is the same thing as making a copy with a DVD. The only person / entity that may have a case is the person /entity who FIRSt uploaded the content for others. Piracy is about making money - piracy is when i buy a legal movie / software and make multiple copies and sell them to others. The problem is @ the source of the piracy. U can download movies / music/ software via torrent with a click, u dont even have to register, so is this my fault because they r there, its like this: somebody puts 1 $ in your hand and says take it its yours, but in 5 mins u get arrested because of stealing. Its simple, fight agains the source of the piracy, dont let your software hit the internet and you splved the problem. Nobody will dowloand your movie / software if it has no source from where to download it. Dont accuse me of piracy when u dont do anything to stop the first uploaders to upload your software.
 

Thor

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2004
51
0
18,580
It is allowed to be a good capitalist company and sell a product 1000% of its real value so rob people. But it is criminal to share files for free.

Spread the word: Sharing is criminal, selling a product 1000% of its value is very honest .. well in a society based solely on money.
Wonderful !
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
617
1
18,930
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]I don't think the RIAA, a private corporation, should have access to see what I do online at all. They have no authority there and should not be able to pressure ISPs into doing their bidding. I think the government should stop them before it gets out of control.Or we could sue the RIAA for invasion of privacy.[/citation]
...or you could just stop stealing copyrighted material
 

potatolord

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2009
52
0
18,580
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]If a terrorist attacked the RIAA, very few would be angered.[/citation]

Yeah, maybe their kids and parents might be a bit upset when they saw their body parts lying in the street, but they'd get over it. Probably the families of the security guards and cleaners working in the building might be a bit upset, but they'd be taking The Man's money and he oppresses the righteous, so they'd be kind of morally culpable, at the least, wouldn't they?

Of all the foolish comments I've seen on Tom's Hardware over the years, yours is right up there, my friend.

Are you Timothy McVeigh in disguise?
 

potatolord

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2009
52
0
18,580
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]If a terrorist attacked the RIAA, he could hardly be considered a terrorist..... While our soldiers are busy fighting "terrorists" in foreign countries, our own gov't is supporting terrorists in our own country. The RIAA is nothing but a terrorist group using the judicial system instead of weapons to terrorize people. Their goal isn't to recoop money lost because of piracy, it's to make a profit. The RIAA makes more off the settlements than the recording industry they claim to be protecting does.[/citation]

You have a very strange definition of terrorism.

Can you provide a link supporting your claim that the RIAA makes more money off copyright infringement settlements that the recording industry does?
 

chuckclc

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2010
2
0
18,510
[citation][nom]beenthere[/nom]Reality theater time. Those who pirate are going to pay and soon it will be a felony with mandatory prison time.[/citation]

So we should just go to local game stores, or Walmarts and steal the hard copies from there right? Only a small fine and a misdemeanor if caught.
 

jimkiler

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2006
6
0
18,510
I like this sentence "If you download copyrighted material, your bandwidth will be throttled." does that include downloads via netflix and amazon VOD? I wonder if the author meant to say if you illegally downloaded copyright material.

I love how business steal patents and it is a lawsuit but not fines in excess of the value of the material but an end user downloads a song or movie and instead of paying 99 cents or $20 they pay thousands. The system is broken since corporations purposely steal patents and know they can be sued but not for 100x times the value of the patent.
 

Katzie

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2011
20
0
18,560
Some people may download movies/games/ect. because their physical discs are scratched to hell for whatever reason. I doubt they would shell out money for the same thing twice...

RIAA is retarded.
 

captaincharisma

Distinguished
[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]20,000 have settled? Why would anyone settle with the RIAA?[/citation]

well letrs see the RIAA is a big multi million dollar company yet the average computer pirate barely has a penny to his name. thats the idea and it looks like no one has called the RIAA's bluff yet.

in fact if even half of these people went to court with the RIAA they can kill the RIAA with all the legal fees the RIAA have to shell out for there own attorney's.
 

zybch

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
217
0
18,830
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom].You're arguing semantics, and I believe the legal word for that is retarded.[/citation]
If I steal something from you, then that something isn't available to you any more. If I violate copyright by copying a DVD of music track from your computer then you have a legal copy of it which you can do with what you want, while I then have an illegitimate copy of it with which I can do anything I want. Nothing has been stolen because you still have it.
The 'retarded' thing is that if I shoplift (steal) a DVD and get caught I may have to pay back the value of the stolen item, say $10-$15, but if I get caught infringing copyright I can get sued for many thousands of dollars, even though nothing physical was taken.
 

captaincharisma

Distinguished
[citation][nom]11796pcs[/nom]Why don't these people just get Netflix?[/citation]

because it sucks and a waste of money. and theres nothing like a company that asks for you're CC and takes money out of you're account every month automatically
 

zybch

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
217
0
18,830
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]because it sucks and a waste of money. and theres nothing like a company that asks for you're CC and takes money out of you're account every month automatically[/citation]
Because netflix is only available in the US and Canada. I'd LOVE to be able to pay $8-$10/month to use a service like netflix but there is nothing in my geographical region (australia) even close to that. The nearest is a service which charges $5-$12 PER MOVIE to view.
When these ignorant media corporation finally get it through their stupid thick heads that making their content widely available at reasonable prices is the day that a huge amount of piracy will stop. They just can't understand that though, instead believing that the ONLY way to remain profitable it to restrict, rip off and litigate.
 

eyemaster

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
396
0
18,930
If it were not for the 7$ charge per movie for when I want to watch it on PPV, I would definitely pay from the comfort of my own couch to watch movies. With Bell, in Canada, Satellite TV offers you the ability to view movies at many different times of the day, but charge anywhere from 5$ for crappy movies to 8$ for the more popular ones. It's way too much money.

Do the math: Buy NO movies at 7$ in a month: 0$ in revenue.
Buy 3-8 movies at 3$ a month: almost 25$ in extra revenue.

We don't buy / rent because we believe the price is too high. Simple!
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
205
0
18,830
Hey. mehbe u should no pirate protected materialz? (sorry about that, I'm trying to talk down to a level the average poster here may understand).

Fact of the matter is you shouldn't be pirating protected material. Plain and simply. Also, the information is heavily filtered and I'm sure 'big brother' could care less about your FaceBook status. Build a bridge...and get over it.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]I don't think the RIAA, a private corporation, should have access to see what I do online at all. They have no authority there and should not be able to pressure ISPs into doing their bidding. I think the government should stop them before it gets out of control.Or we could sue the RIAA for invasion of privacy.[/citation]

My thoughts exactly, but what did you expect , the FBI has basically been the MPAA's personal security force for the better part of a century now (about 60 years to be exact). it was only a matter of time before the RIAA got in on the action too.

sad state our country is slipping into it's already pretty terrible and looks as though things are only gonna get worse.
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
1,548
0
19,730
The US patent/copyright system is not working correctly when suing people can be considered a viable long term revenue stream. Law suits are supposed to be used as deterrents to people/companies using your property, not as a way to make money.

The system is also broken when it allows bullies to sue massive numbers of people for insane amounts of money and then offer them low settlement costs. They need to make a law saying that you can't offer a settlement for less than say 30% of what you're suing for. Suing for $10,000,000 and then settling for $2000 is just trolling.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
[citation][nom]dark_knight33[/nom]Right, why does China need the RIAA? The "People's Gov't" already tells you what you can & can't watch, and what you can & can't download. Great Firewall of China, anyone? Communism isn't the problem, corruption is, and the unadulterated capitalism of the last 2 decades that has crushed the middle class, and put a crap load of the gov't under corporate control proves that the US isn't immune to the very same problem. E.g. FCC, Comcast, NBC deal, where one of the regulators took a very lucrative job at Comcast/NBC only weeks after voting to approve the merger. [Troll] If only the damn teabaggers would stop voting corporate yes men into the house of reps, crap like this would be prosecuted. [/Troll][/citation]

actually the more and more i look at it captialism looks more and more like the worse idea ever (i'm a US citizen born and raised btw). yeah sounds nice on papper , but in actual application it has had numerous instances of corruption , greed , and out right failling (1930's Depression). and in the end i think it wil only blow up a sthe bnigf companies will keep charging more while every one else , just keeps maiking less money , eventually no one will be able to afford any thing and all these companies wil wind up bankrupt unless they move to form monopolies now.
now don't take that the wrong way i'm not saying monolpolies are good , they are the WORSE thing, but in time only psedou monopolies will survive becasue of how the system works , only monoplies wil be able to make money because peoepl will have to buy form them , any other company will just die, when most the population is to broke to buy, and this is the power of a monopoly. Once we reach that state , they wil bassically have free reign to do what ever the hell they wish to do.

but i see worse on the horizion long before things get to that point. Before things reach that point i'd wager there will be wide spread starvation, rioting , maybe even an all out civil war of people versus the corperations. sounds far fetched ? for now it certainly does but imagine this country 100-200 years from now when things are ten times worse , the population is ten times in size and resources are ten times more scarce, it's very very plausible for that time. Right now only 5-10% of US is hungry or homeless ,but at the rate we are going in 200 years time that figure could very well inflate to 50-70% depending one how fast the population rises in 200 years. add that to diminishing resources , and diminishing capacity to produce many consumables from those resources , and you are just looking at a ticking time bomb.

Clearly change needs to be implemented now to avoid such future possibilities. we can speak about freedom all high and mighty right now , but in 200 years loosing many freedoms wil be a life or death matter. we need population control at least self induced at the individual level ,before it becomes a govermental concern such as the case in china. as for right now . i'm all for the goverment inserting more powers over corperations, the jackels have ran free on the plains for far too long as it is. We need to end corpution in oru goverment as well , this coruption si also part of teh problem democrats , republicians it doesn't mnatter , both sides are backed by big buisness' and both sides have alot to gain by caving it to corperation demands and nothign to gain by trying to control corperations.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]It's legal because of all the dumbasses that keep trying to steal ... create a massive problem and what exactly do you expect?? Here take all my hard work and pay for none of it ... this isn't a communistic country, get over it. You don't wanna pay for anything then go to a communistic country and see how much you really like it.[/citation]

youa dn every oen waving the "communism-is-evil" flag are the dumb asses , the true definition of a communism is that every one works and oputs into teh community pot and every one can take from that pot , The former USSR ,and China as it si today were not and Are not Communist countries. they are dictator ships. the reasonign behidn that is the russians figured they could set upa dictatorship first to bring things "to order" and eventually teh dictatorship would disolve cos a communism could be left , of course they didn't factor in greed , or stalin.
also for the reocrd the US IS NOT A DEMOCRACY either , it is a replublic the diference being in a real democracy every one votes directly for their leaders , in a republic you vote directly for a hosue of representatives that then votes on the president, senate and congress postions supossably they are supposed to take thier state's votes into account but who is to say that every representative actually does this.

jsut tired of every one misusing the terms communism and democracy , because honestly NEITHER one really exsist , they are just fantasies. democracy is to impractical to impliment on a large scale ,and comunism wil never really work because of the human greed factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.