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