MPAA sues six TV BitTorrent sites

[dvdguy4]

I love reading this. Its better than going to the movies.

[adam]

I'm glad. Please send me some royalties.

[dvdguy4]

The MPAA might want there share. LOL

[ROF]

Whatever. I would like to know other wise if torrents dont have viruses within them. Thats a reason why most US Universities dont allow dl's from them.

There are two false statements here:

1) Bit Torrent files have no more viruses than your email box does.

2) Universities and some corporations do not allow torrents because of the bandwidth used and the potential lawsuits that can follow such downloading.

FACT: Viruses are more common in email attachments then on any p2p file shares or torrent file sites.

You got to laugh at some of the uneducated people when it comes to files on the net. Next thing you know, these same people who claim that torrents are full of viruses are going to say that George Lucas isn't the source for the Star Wars 3 Torrent file. Just too funny.

Happy downloading!

[Laddydaddy]

Adam wrote;

I'm glad. Please send me some royalties

If we don't, would this be a case of copyright infringement or piracy?

[Nilfennasion]

Okay, maybe my logic is a bit funny. The way I see it, the RIAA and MPAA are sort of the Microsoft of creative arts. If they don't approve your project, it gets limited exposure at best and you make little, if any money from it. If they do approve of it, they will take it away from you and keep taking money from it until your grandchildren die. Often without seeing a cent from all that hard work you did. I know they have nothing to do with artist compensation, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise when you listen to some of their propaganda.

As far as downloading music for free goes, well, you can really argue about how it is theft until the cows come home. Most of the indie labels who make real music, on the other hand, view it as advertising or even a business model to be developed. Having witnessed the development of many independent record labels from small time wasters to profitable businesses as a direct result of MP3 trading, I would be wary of speaking in absolutes about it. Yes, it is illegal, but the claim that it does nothing beside take money out of the artist's pocket and put it in some thief's or mafia hood's is just the RIAA failing to take a look at a big picture that says people are ten times more likely to buy if they are familiar with the product. That's not just applicable to films or music, either. Companies like Colgate or Pepsi spend millions of dollars on the sole purpose of trying to make the consumer more familiar with their product.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't price gouging illegal, too? It has only been since about 1998 or so that the Australian government stopped toadying and finally made it difficult for the RIAA to do this in Australia. Meantime, Australians were paying anywhere from 33 to 66 percent more than they should for just about anything with music on it. And they wonder why MP3 trading is especially popular in Australia.

If you're ever going to compile arguments like these and some observations into a book, I'd happily pay for a copy.

[DereX888]

Adam, Im no lawyer, I won't go to the areas I have no knowledge of.
However please remember - laws change.
Unjust laws are usually overturned in a matter of time, either by country's legislative system itself, or by revolutions.
I know many people from USA, quite few of them are my friends. Almost everyone of them is very unhappy with the current laws governing them at present. Compared to people from other countries (European, South Americam and Asian) I'd say Americans are the most unhappy with their laws people in the world, and Im not talking about MPAA/RIAA bullshit only ofcourse. But thats one giant OT...
Back to MPAA.
You said yourself that MPAA is not a labour union (an organized extortion group for the benefit of its members - "legal mafia" as I call it). Since it seems that you have the most knowledge on the 'legal' subject here, could you please explain in plain english what actually are MPAA and RIAA? What is their purpose for existence, why they were erected at some point in time, whom they represent and whom they don't?


BTW:
To those saying "torrents are viruses" - please, quit talking out of your arse about something you have no clue. If torrents are viruses, then you can say "emails are viruses" as well, or even "the internet is a virus".
Just STFU you morons.

[canadateck]

We are already criminals in the eye’s of the MPAA and others who feel the laws are not strict enough.

You buy a DVD or VHS, Bring it home watch it, decide you didn’t like it, you can’t return it for a refund., Because you “could” have copied it. However, Thats the way it is and for now, we have to deal with it.

How many times have you saw a “Movie Trailer:” and the movie looked Bad? Not many, But then go out See/buy the movie and all the good parts were in the trailer. Many times!
This is why we can test-drive a car before buying it.

[dvdguy4]

Who the cares anymore about any of this crap now. Its just turning into stupid argument that everyones right while no ones wrong. Its just a frigin forum. We " including myself" all need to get a grip

[canadateck]

Who the cares anymore about any of this crap now. Its just turning into stupid argument that everyones right while no ones wrong. Its just a frigin forum. We " including myself" all need to get a grip

Speak for yourself.



I care, yeah it's a forum but this is one of the best ways to communicate and get our voices heard.

[dvdguy4]

Heard , not ripped apart.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Once again piracy is a STATUTORILY defined word. Copyright infringement is defined as any violation of the exclusive rights provided by a copyright. Piracy is statutorily defined as any violation of the express right to copy and/or authorize copying, which is one of those express rights provided by copyright. Whether or not the infringement results in a monetary loss to the copyright holder or a gain to the infringer makes no difference. It never has, not in any country in the entire world.

But even still, the fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to commit infringement on the internet without actually causing a monetary effect. How many protocols are there out there where you can efficiently download without also uploading? Do you also know the actual intent of all those other downloaders? Or how about the fact that in virtually no other market in the ~$10-$20 range of CDs and DVDs, does one get to try before they buy? This is especially counterintuitive with movies because most people only view them once anyway.

EvilWizardGlick:

You have no idea how annoying it is to spend ~$75,000 of your own money to go to law school, bust your ass studying for the Bar, study Copyright statutes and caselaw for ~7 years steady, and defend real clients who are paying for your legal opinion, only to be told you are wrong by people on a video forum who will not even bother read past the blogs at fuckmpaa.com.

As for your questions, if you violate a US copyright it does not matter where you are in the world. For that matter every single civilized nation is now governed by either the Berne Treaty or the Trips Treaty therefore they all respect the fundamental and universal notion that copyrights are enforced regardless of the monetary effect of the infringement. And additionally, under these treaties every signatory country must also enforce the copyright laws of all other signatory countries so the US's copyright law would still be enforced even if the movie was not copyrighted there, but in reality a major motion picture is going to be copyrighted in every major country of the world because copyrights are basically free and in most countries you gain them just by creating your work.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm sure the legal definition is all encompassing. But laws can be wrong. Like laws making blacks slaves, or not allowing interracial couple to marry.
Every country is governed by the Geneva Convention and we all know how the US manages to piss on that. This is just more US cherry picking of what they like and dislike.
Every nation has laws against child molestation. yet the churhc, and the present pope, were actively involved in covering the tracks of pedophiles. The church, and the present pope, even had the idiocy to suggest that priests should be allowed one freebie.
How does file sharing compare to that?
Honestly just how many laws and treaties do you think the US ( and Big Business) has broken? Is planning to break? And why should some file sharer NOT break the " law" when his own government treats them as hot air and the written versions as toilet paper?
Until ALL parties FULLY respect the laws that exist what is the point of having them? If governments and corporations and rich people can safely break the worlds laws why can't file sharers?
Obviously corporations inflate the price of the loss or profit. The same thing happens with drug arrests. No one knows for a FACT if a movie will profit or lose money. You can NOT base an estimate on lack of FACTS.
So why does big media get away with it?
You don't no how boring it is to have anal types preach about the law from their limited persepctive.
No matter how much money one spends on a degree it still not wash away troubling psychological issues.
Does it?

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator BJ_M

[thor300]

How plugged can one be in the top floor? Theres no consistence in derex posts, and now he even try to talk his way out of it. Who said torrents ARE viruses? If you cant read then find something else to do than half-drunk posting.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. For abusive pm msg's

/ Moderator BJ_M

[dvdguy4]

No one said torrents are viruses. Torrents can contain viruses.

[BJ_M]

no politics

[adam]

Nilfennasion that is not at all what the RIAA or MPAA do, or are used for. I'll go ahead and answer one of DereX888's question here too. I said they were not a labor union, but I did not say they weren't a union. That is exactly what they are but they represent the studio's not the artists. They have nothing to do with which projects get approved or what the artists get via their respective contracts with their studios of choice. They represent the rights of the collective studios who choose to join the organization. They issue propoganda (not necessarily a bad thing but in the case of these organizations it kinda is) and more than anything they monitor potentially infringing activity and sue on behalf of their studios. It is not hard to understand why these organizations get such a bad rap, its because they represent oligopolies so there is basically no accountability in the marketplace. And most importantly they subrogate the studios which means they step into their shoes whenever there is a suit. They are a scapegoat. So if Sony Records does some horrible illegal act, the RIAA gets sued and just chalk it up on the long list of reasons people hate the RIAA. Meanwhile Sony avoids most of the blame. But none of this changes the fact that the people these organizations are suing are clearly in violation of the artist's/studio's copyrights and in many cases other federal laws as well. I don't like the MPAA/RIAA either but their offensiveness is neither a moral nor legal defense to copyright infringement.

Nilfennasion: price gouging and price fixing are indeed illegal in the US because they violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Several major record labels were found guilty of price fixing and had to pay out a huge class action settlement. I know my wife and I each got ours though it wasn't that much money once divided up. Note this has nothing to do with the RIAA except that the RIAA represents them in the suit, just like an insurance company would. The RIAA did not price fix. I'm not aware of any allegations of price fixing regarding the motion picture industy. You can't call it price fixing just because you think their products cost too much. There has to be an actual conspiracy within the industry. Otherwise, anyone can charge any price they want for their products. Here in America I find DVDs to be ridiculously cheap. I can buy a new release for less than my family's lunch at McDonalds.

@others: All the other comments seem to suggest that copyright laws are just unfair...but how do you know? Like I've already shown, often the things people complain about most (showing time-shifted material to a friend) are perfectly legal. So which law exactly is it that is unfair? That you can't download anything you want off of the internet for free? Is this really what some people are suggesting? I don't understand what is so unfair about making someone pay for a product if they want it.

Also consider that Intellectual Property laws are becoming very uniform through international treaties, and I should also note that the United States was one of the absolute last civilized countries to join these already established treaties, so there is no undue influence from Hollywood/Musicland. Its already a stretch to suggest that a country like the US is just copyright crazy and that "The Man" is keeping us down. But to do this you've really got to same the same for almost all of the civilized nations in the world. At some point you've just got to admit that you are in a minority position and not the victim of some conspiracy, at least until you resolve to do some calculated research on the matter.