Download Lawsuits
 

Have you heard about all of these lawsuits, many of them against college students, for downloading movies illegally off the internet? I guess the MPAA is really cracking down. I can't imagine anything worse than being sued at this point. Its definitley a reason not to do it.

Yeah, there's a really big crack down on all the illegal burning of movies. Like setting up fake servers or something to catch people. I'm worried about the people who have stopped doing it recently, but still get caught from the stuff they did do.

I also read today that the MPAA has shut down a bunch of sites that we providing these movies. Bit Torrent was one of them. Here is an article about it.

http://news.com.com/BitTorrent+file-...j=news.1025.20

They didn't shut down bit torrent. They shut down websites that provide listing of available torrents like Suprnova.

At the end of the day the lawsuits are a drop in the bucket and you have a better chance at being struck by lighting. It's funny how they're trying to advertise and carry it in the media like it's such a big scary thing.

-Rudey

I haven't seen any numbers on this, but I understand its not that uncommon. I haven't heard any stories yet at my school, but people are worried.

Does anyone know anyone who has been sued for downloading movies or music?

You understand incorrectly.

Saw this in the Princeton paper. It looks like it is an issue there.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/arc...on/11391.shtml

I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, duder - honestly, they can prosecute a million kids all over the nation, and they're not even getting one in a hundred. The actual number of lawsuits is far lower, perhaps a tenth of that (on the faaaaaaaar high end) - so you have a less-than-0.1% chance of being prosecuted by the MPAA or RIA. It's not quite getting your car towed from a fire lane.

Also, notice that all of these have come from public distribution networks? Intelligent, there. Keep your eyes open and your brain on, and I can't envision any problems.

Music, and to a lesser extent DVD releases, will soon go the way of cable television - you'll pay a fee, and sit through commercials, but this is all damage control (especially for the MPAA, as the RIA is pretty much screwed no matter what). Ever wonder why the damage amounts are so surreal, and so well publicized?

So you'll see it and stop.

Just like you're posting now.

I certainly see your point about the MPAA and RIAA making the threat look greater than it is to get people to stop. I wanted to share this for two reasons. One I think people should know that there is a chance of legal action regardless of the odds and we should be aware of that. Secondly I think it is an interesting debate. I am opposed to illegal downloads because I think artists should be compensated fairly for their work and I wanted to share that.

ahhh, see that's what I thought you were getting at . . . if you want to have that argument, that's fine too.

Artists are not compensated well for album sales to begin with - the vast majority of wealthy musicians make their money from subsidiary sources (mostly touring, but also brand management, promotions, outsourcing/production/etc).

Here's the rub: there's never been any proof that artists are hurt more than they're helped by illegal downloading. In fact, we can probably name hundreds of artists that make far more now than they did before - OAR is a key example, increasing their distribution and touring schedule due to a largely illegal underground distribution of their music across college campuses.

Now, the ones that have the most 'legitimate' gripe are the artists who are incapable of touring, for one reason or another - mostly b/c the digital processing is so intense on their music that they cannot necessarily replicate it live. This means they are not so much "artists" as "props". I feel no remorse whatsoever for them, even thought they are probably the ones that need the protection.

Also, very few of the major-label artists affected the most by downloading are really in the poor house to start with, and the artists most supportive of file sharing are the smaller, boutique-label acts who could use the money most. You do the math there.

As far as movie files . . . honestly, it was bound to happen eventually, it's the modern equivalent of taping off of HBO or from a rented video. Either the MPAA will have to spend millions to develop increasingly stronger proprietary encryption for DVDs, or they can 'lose millions' in potential sales. You pick, and at the same time I'll continue to not really be concerned about commercial movie profits. That is one industry that is NOT hurting for funds.

does anyone use mIRC?

I download music all the time. I think it would be funny if they sued me.

http://www.slyck.com

These lawsuits have been going on for a couple years now, but most people have learned the secrets of getting around being caught. Limit the amount of files you share (under 1000 doesn't attract attention to your computer) and avoid using file-sharing networks that keep track of your activity (Kazaa).

People have been sued and the worst I heard was a fine of 2 or 3 grand with the computer's hard drive being confiscated. A while back I heard Verizon was trying to block the RIAA and MPAA from using DMCA requests to get the names of their curstomers that were illegally trading files, but I think Verizon eventually lost that battle.

Decentralized bit torrent and irc are the safest spots right now, but not many people are smart enough to use them still...

RUgreek

Actually, the best study on downloading music was done by Harvard Business School and it showed the effect was...NONE!

I can't look it up right now, but I am sure it's on the web if anyone wants to look for it...

-Rudey

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation

This is a story on the study.

As far as movie files . . . honestly, it was bound to happen eventually, it's the modern equivalent of taping off of HBO or from a rented video. Either the MPAA will have to spend millions to develop increasingly stronger proprietary encryption for DVDs, or they can 'lose millions' in potential sales. You pick, and at the same time I'll continue to not really be concerned about commercial movie profits. That is one industry that is NOT hurting for funds. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think those at the top of the film industry, top actors, directors, etc. are obviously making a lot of money but there are a lot of other people making a living off DVD sales that suffer from this sort of thing.

Decentralized bit torrent and irc are the safest spots right now, but not many people are smart enough to use them still...

what do you mean by decentralized Bit Torrent. It looks like they are not operational right now.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...717#post925717

OK - so the solution is prosecuting college kids, and not decreasing the incredibly steep salary structure?

You let me know when a college kid does enough damage to cause $5 million in damage to DVD sales (which is 33% of what a tier-2 actor would receive from a major motion picture).

It's nonsense, and it does nothing, I might add, to offset the "artists getting theirs" portion of your argument.

The reality is that the MPAA and RIAA are simply fighting against the quicksand - they'll only sink faster, b/c they are literally driving innovation to make downloading these things faster, safer, and more secure. The future wins, every time.

You will always have more people buying stuff than pirating it.

A lot of Piraters are people that hate to pay retail, like to be clever, or just hate the establishment in general.

And movies are less likely to be pirated enmasse than music.

How much is your time worth? Are you going to look up a movie source online, download it and then burn it? When you can go to hollywood video and buy 3 DVD's for $25.00?

Too much effort most of the time.

I think those at the top of the film industry, top actors, directors, etc. are obviously making a lot of money but there are a lot of other people making a living off DVD sales that suffer from this sort of thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

I remember the days (Holy fuck, I'm 22 saying that) when people would WANT to buy the ENTIRE album. One of the many complaints from downloaders is that they only want to hear a few songs (if not a couple singles) from the album....

That doesn't make it right, but when these artists stop sitting on their asses, only making a couple good songs then puting in filler, then maybe there'll be an incentive to buy a whole album as opposed to taking the time to download one.....

If they sue me, will you be my lawyer?

I'm going with Rob on this one though -- regardless of whether or not you think it's wrong (and I think it's a little bit wrong, like maybe 5% wrong, but not enough that I'm not gonna do it), suing people is not going to fix anything. They're fighting a losing battle here; downloading is too entrenched in the culture for them to end it. What they need to be doing is thinking of other ways they can capitalize on the downloading culture, not attempt to eradicate it.

My main reason for downloading music is because I don't want to buy the whole album. Why pay $15 for an album when I can download 2 songs for free? Like Stan said, the artists need to make an album of all good songs instead of just a few good songs. I can listen to an entire Beatles album and think every song is great but I could never do the same with a Metallica album (I use Metallica since they're so against downloading).

The music industry needs to go with the new technology instead of trying to fight against it. It will only be an uphill, losing battle if they keep suing people. From the very beginning of when downloading music started to become popular, they should have capitalized on it instead of fought against it. They should have provided people with good quality downloads for a small price (maybe 50 cents a download). Over the years, the quality of the downloads has improved and people have been getting free music and movies for so long that they'd never fork over the cash an mp3. The RIA has shot themselves in the foot.

do you see, over there? That's where Lars was going to put his gold-plated shark tank. now, there will be no gold plated shark tank. Don't you see what you're doing, boys?!

I think the best point from the study may have been that these songs are being downloaded by college students who don't have the money to buy CD and albums anyway. The record company can't claim lost wages on products that they wouldn't have sold anyway.

The claims of the industry are overblown, and until they quit their agressive attitude towards these downloads, they'll continue to make themselves look foolish.

1) Piracy has increased? Hey guess what? Music sales have increased recently as well.

2) There is a huge difference between someone who won't buy a product anyway and downloads it and someone who will and chooses to download it. This isn't like taking a car - a physical product one person won't be able to use if stolen.

3) The profits coming into the music industry in the 1990s were considered a "bubble" along with the economy and are in no way the standard by which to measure all future sales against.

4) Forget about fair and not fair. It was not fair that when the industry switched to CDs from tapes, prices went up, but hey whatever. How about how dirty the industry is already? Record producers are not saints.

For the PC, my friends use shareaza.com. For the Mac, acquisition and poisoned are great programs.

-Rudey

This is such a fantastic point, I'd like to repeat it - the major advantage to CDs, to record labels, was never digital quality . . . but rather that CDs can be mass-produced and packaged FAR cheaper (something like 5% of the cost) than other methods. But yet prices went up . . . interesting.

F- the RIAA.

You let me know when a college kid does enough damage to cause $5 million in damage to DVD sales (which is 33% of what a tier-2 actor would receive from a major motion picture).

That's a very good arguement, but its not just about the numbers. Its more about the idea of not being compensated for work you did that others are enjoying.

Also we are of course not looking at the impact of one indicudual, but of the large number of college students and others word wide.

I think Nutty McShithead explained it the best...


RUgreek

it looks like they are continuing to fight against piracy: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/06/1548610.htm

i always wondered what they did about people selling this stuff. i think its good to see they are standing up on all parts of this issue. what do you think?

The title of the thread totally confused me. I thought it was going to be about a website where you could download the legal proceedings/records of lawsuits to read. I was like :confused: "Why is this in entertainment? I guess maybe the lawyers and law students on GC might find these things interesting/entertaining."

oh yeah, i can see why that would be confusing... i just thought that all this piracy stuff was really interesting. have y'all been hearing much about it lately?

Epsilon:

I just looked through all of your posts, nearly 95% of them were related to promoting TV shows, telling us how bad music and movie piracy is, or bringing us the latest news about some poor kid being put into debt by the mafia-like RIAA randomly selecting him for a lawsuit.

Why are you so interested in these things?

Well, i guess i am just a big tv fan and i like talking about it (i mean what good is reality tv w/o discussing it?) and i just thought the whole piracy thing was kinda interesting...