:ohnoes:
Really loving usenet ssl downloads right now.
price?
I DL’d the expendables a few weeks ago from thepiratebay… uh oh, lol
Glad I didn’t download either of those movies but ruh roh for those that did…
Well, it’s 20000 people. I wonder if your odds are better of going splat base jumping or getting sued?
Lol, I’ll let you guys know. I have a friend that specifically defends people in these types of cases.
---------- Post added at 09:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------
Ironically, this is one of about ten movies that I’ve ever downloaded.
I saw Hurt Locker as a Red Box movie I think :tup:
Even then, I almost always use newsgroups for large HD movies since it’s so fast.
i dont really download movies anymore, it takes too long since i have the base time warner cable internet, i just wait till it comes out on redbox then burn them lol
Perhaps not…
Time to give Mr. DeVoy a call newman
Ya these lawsuits are a joke of the law system. A major company suing john doe at ip XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
In today’s world, every public IP that would have an identity has multiple people using it unless you are a moron who plugs their PC right into the internet. These lawsuits would be the same thing as suing someone you have no description of but only know he lives in an apartment building so you grab the first person who walks out the door.
Agreed the lawsuits are a joke, but your logic on IP tracing is really flawed. Yeah, the majority of home users are using routers with multiple computers but it really doesn’t matter. If you have 10 PC’s at your house you’re still responsible for what every one of them is doing through your single public facing IP. It really doesn’t matter that your kid downloaded The Hurt Locker on his laptop because it was still downloaded to your residence on your account. When the MPAA is looking at IP addresses that are downloading movies they get the public one, which your internet provider has a record of you having at the exact time the file was being downloaded.
I just don’t think the BS of the law system is as noticeable in this type of crime because there is no victim. I can provide internet access but why am I responsible for how to use it? I can be a landlord and rent my apartments to people but that doesn’t make me responsible if someone raped someone in one of the rooms. Is there laws requiring someone who owns an internet connection on the billing side of it to take on this risk? Its not like its a handgun that is registered to someone and turns up used in a murder scene.
I just can’t see the correlation of being the account holder on an internet connection and being responsible how its used which is why I am thinking of it like the landlord and apartment leaser viewpoint.
As a landlord it would be a lot more complicated. If it was me I’d have logs of what people were doing with the internet connection in my name though to cover my ass. If it was one of the typical “you shared xyz movie on xyz date and time, knock it off or we’ll sue” I’d cancel their internet. If it was an actual lawsuit you could turn over the records to your lawyer showing it was the tenant.
The vast majority of these aren’t landlord tenant relationships though. They’re single family homes where the owner of the connection IS responsible for everyone in the house. And shut up with your “victimless crime” BS. I download shit too, but at least I can admit it is stealing. Bottom line is you’re getting something for free that you SHOULD have been paying for. Wrap it up in all the technology you want but bottom line is it’s still stealing.
I’m not denying its stealing and wrong. I just think that the matter it’s pursued is making a mockery of the law system with the way they are filing these lawsuits purely to extort cash out of the people.
On another note, the estimated damages is another crock because 99% of the people who download a movie would not go out and buy it if they couldn’t find it online.
Agreed on both. But at the same time they can’t really just sue you for the $20 a bluray costs. If that was the risk of being caught it wouldn’t serve as a deterrent to anyone.
I agree. I just think there should be some middle ground between downloading 31 songs and paying $675,000 and then having to appeal it to get it reduced to $67,500. They would do a lot better getting people with $5,000 lawsuits to be honest.
The money doesn’t even go to the artists, it goes to suing more people. I think for every song you download you should have to go out and buy one shitty CD…like Cher or something.
Ya. Honestly labels are a thing of the past and as soon as the older generation now fades out, there will be no needs for labels as iTunes, Amazon, and even YouTube can become the new distribution front for music and artists. It will only be a matter of time before the same outlets really break into the motion picture markets too.