Millenium Films Sues 10 Million Expendables 3 Downloaders

[MadShadow]

but we need low quality items so that lower income people can have a life too.

Wow. I agree with SeekaX on this one.

 

[JR23]

I don't agree with pirating and it's not something I would do personally, I like to be legit and my rural internet is so shocking it's not worth the hassle.

On the flip side there aren't or certainly aren't many convenient and good streaming/downloading services at a reasonable cost. Their needs to be an equivalent of steam for films where they can be bought, downloaded and saved on your PC in a specified quality and available to re-download or stream on other devices when you sign in. I guess that the iTunes platform is close but it's ridiculously expensive and doesn't state quality i'm not paying £14 for DVD quality Wolf of Wall Street when I could just buy a blu-ray :/ I've tried the streaming services and got through a fair bit of content on them however to my eyes it is always very noticeable that they are streamed even with decent University internet. It's only a concept that works if you can assume the entire world has 100% perfect internet.

Anyway that's my opinion on whats causing the problem, it's not that entire world is a stingy tight fisted thief but just that it's genuinely more convenient to steal films than obtain them legitimately and ultimately that's only the fault of those trying to prevent pirating. Suing 10 million people for $300 is preposterous and I would be amazed if they actually got $300k back. I wonder how they arrived at $300 :/, I can't see how anyone has done that much damage.

JR

#1kPosts

 

[Greenback]

Maybe making it cheaper to go to the cinema would also help, When you are looking at £50 for a family of 4 to just get in and add for popcorn drink you will be getting close to £70-£80.

I would also consider that some of these downloaders are kids who aren't old enough to go to the cinema so download it instead

 

[shambles1980]

I assume the $300 fee is carefully thought out to be an ammount a lot of people will just pay rather than get dragged through court whilst being an ammount high enough to serve as a deterrant in the future.

Persoanlly i have always thought it would be better to target the uploader(s). rather than the hosting site or the subsiquent downloaders thouhgh.
Also i find it hard to prossicute some one for downloading something.
Im pretty sure that the rules regarding this sort of stuff surrounds distribution.
I.E
you cant upload this or share it with your friends, and you also cannot publicly display it..
So if some one was given the right to upload it (lawyers and so on) just to find who will download it. then it wasnt illigaly distributed. and so no one did anything wrong..

im pretty sure its one of those. "lets upload this film see who down loads it then try and mak them pay $300 for it" situations.
a small % will cough up the $300 and probably think twice before downloading again. and the rest will never see a court case as you cant actually say Who downloaded what. it could be the bill payer, the spouse, a child. some one nextdoor who used your wifi. "in the case of the child doing it i guess the parents would still be liable for any costs though"
and as i already mentioned. if it was distributed by some one who had the rights to distribute it. then no laws were broken regardless..
the only thing that may be happening here is extortion..
Whats to prevent Warner brothers (or similar) flooding the internet with a copy of their latest movie then delaying it from cinemas so as many people as possible download it then charge them $300 after the fact?

I do remember a number of years ago "when this send letters out to people who download stuff started" seeing a Lot of Peer ip adresses for movies that were registered to warner brothers "if you did a who is look up on the ip" so as far as im concerned they are distributing these things them selfs "probably not the crappy cam rips" and as a result wave any right they have to prossicute for you downloading it. They have the right to distribute it, and provide a download source with no stipulations.

of course this could have been a cleaner or something with a laptop who was using the wi fi or a spooffed ip or something. but the sheer ammount of movies and uploads that were arround at that time with WB registered ip addresses would make me believe that they do it them selfs.. "or atleast did."

 

[nepas]

Good, people need to be slapped into understanding that theft is wrong, about time!

I don't think the quality of the product is a valid point, if it were everything that isn't top rate would be ok to steal, but we need low quality items so that lower income people can have a life too.

Piracy =/= theft

people who think it is need to be slapped into understanding.....

 

[BigBlue1]

unauthorized use, trespass, conversion, misappropriation.... call it what you like, it is wrong to do. Those that do it need to be punished.

 

[Dicehunter]

unauthorized use, trespass, conversion, misappropriation.... call it what you like, it is wrong to do. Those that do it need to be punished.

You would of done well as an SS officer during WW2.

 

[BigBlue1]

You would of done well as an SS officer during WW2.

I suppose you would prefer to live in a lawless world where your possessions are only yours if you stay awake and guard them 24/7 and if you doze off they are mine for the taking? C'mon, standing up for lawlessness is just silly don't you think?

 

[MadShadow]

You would of done well as an SS officer during WW2.

Haha, good one

I've gotta say though, I am really against piracy, especially when it comes to games and programs. I've downloaded the occasional video off YouTube, but thats not exactly piracy as it was put up there to be listened to in the first place.

 

[Dicehunter]

I suppose you would prefer to live in a lawless world where your possessions are only yours if you stay awake and guard them 24/7 and if you doze off they are mine for the taking? C'mon, standing up for lawlessness is just silly don't you think?

Listen you're obviously a very wealthy person judging by your boastings on these forums and hence don't really know what it's like to not have a disposable income.

You yourself stated that you bought a ferrari but will never use it as it's nice to look at, I'm paraphrasing a bit but that's what you said so I don't think you're at all qualified for this subject seeing as it's mainly the people with far less income that download a lot.

 

[BigBlue1]

Haha, good one

I've gotta say though, I am really against piracy, especially when it comes to games and programs. I've downloaded the occasional video off YouTube, but thats not exactly piracy as it was put up there to be listened to in the first place.

Thank you.
I think that anyone that has created something like art, software code, music or movies, etc. will be likely to be against piracy and copyright infringement and those that have not yet created those things won't care much. When it's your income being nibbled away it's important, if it's not, it's not.

 

[SeekaX]

You would of done well as an SS officer during WW2.

Now that is just well over the top.
I agree that pirating is a form of theft and i don't think low income justifies it. You can't just walk into a store and steal a television just because you can't afford it either. Punishing people for pirating isn't an easy topic, if you only charge them 50$ it's still profitable to pirate, if you charge 1000$+ it seems draconian. It's hard to prove who pirated stuff and what the intentions of the uploader are, but just letting it go isn't right either.
It's a crime easily committed because there is a huge distance between the victim and the offender, also the risk of getting caught is very low, that creates the illusion that it is less morally wrong or illegal than actual physical theft.
I avoid pirating as often as i can, if something isn't worth my money then it isn't worth my time.

 

[Dicehunter]

Now that is just well over the top.
I agree that pirating is a form of theft and i don't think low income justifies it. You can't just walk into a store and steal a television just because you can't afford it either. Punishing people for pirating isn't an easy topic, if you only charge them 50$ it's still profitable to pirate, if you charge 1000$+ it seems draconian. It's hard to prove who pirated stuff and what the intentions of the uploader are, but just letting it go isn't right either.
It's a crime easily committed because there is a huge distance between the victim and the offender, also the risk of getting caught is very low, that creates the illusion that it is less morally wrong or illegal than actual physical theft.
I avoid pirating as often as i can, if something isn't worth my money then it isn't worth my time.

Not really over the top, A lot of people view others that download nearly close to baby killers and think they deserve thousands in the way of fines or possibly jail time both of which can ruin lives.

Sure pirating is wrong but I bet there isn't anyone on this forum who hasn't done it at least once in their whole life, Even Miss BigBlue1

 

[MadShadow]

Sure pirating is wrong but I bet there isn't anyone on this forum who hasn't done it at least once in their whole life, Even Miss BigBlue1

I've only done music. But honestly, if it was easier to have one platform for all music downloads, I might have paid. Yes there is iTunes, but I have no apple devices and its shite anyway.

 

[BigBlue1]

Not really over the top, A lot of people view others that download nearly close to baby killers and think they deserve thousands in the way of fines or possibly jail time both of which can ruin lives.

Sure pirating is wrong but I bet there isn't anyone on this forum who hasn't done it at least once in their whole life, Even Miss BigBlue1

You lose that bet!

 

[SeekaX]

Not really over the top, A lot of people view others that download nearly close to baby killers and think they deserve thousands in the way of fines or possibly jail time both of which can ruin lives.

Sure pirating is wrong but I bet there isn't anyone on this forum who hasn't done it at least once in their whole life, Even Miss BigBlue1

There is quite a huge gap between someone who demands online pirates to be punished and someone hunting down and massmurdering jews because he thinks they are subhumans.
Just because everyone has done it at some point doesn't make it any less bad.

 

[shambles1980]

its not theft though.. your not taking some thing away from some one.
and many people download stuff try it then buy it. "although thats mostly true for pc games due to online play not being available for pirates usually"
so they may download it and then buy it. or if they download it and think its terrible they then delete it.. and dont buy it. you could argue that if they didnt download it they would have bought it and never played it,
But then you could argue that they were decived in to buying something they didnt want which you could also argue was obtaining money by deception which is also a crime. personally i dont think it is deception.. but i also dont think piracy is theft either.

If the developer or whatever uploads the file(s) to the internet with no stipulations and you download it then there is no crime. the act of downloading it is not a crime. Distributing it without rights to do so is a crime.
If i buy a game, music cd, dvd.. and then upload it. That is a crime it is illigal distribution of the file. Downloders arent really commiting a crime because they cant know that i do not have distribution rights.

If a shop decided to have a massive sale and sell some form of media for £0.01 when the publisher says the RRP is £199.99 That is not a crime. they could even give the things away for free. and thats not a crime, they are allowed to distribute it..
The same is true if i buy 1000 copys of some thing and give away 999 of them that is not a crime either.
so its a bit conveluted for people to think of downloaders "pirates arrr" as criminals..
when the Only people in the whole chain who are breaking any laws are the Uploaders..
Its rediculous how they target downloaders, and the hosting/torrent sites. when in reality the sites and downloaders arent actually doing anything wrong. and the only people they do not target are the criminals who are the uploaders..
and the only reason i can imagine they dont target the uploaders is because they gave the uploaders the right to disribute the media to get a list of downloaders. Which as i stated earlier means ther is no crime at all..

this piracy stuff is easy to shut down.. and its not a matter of telling isps to block websites. (honestly if you block a web site because it lets you search for a torrent file. then you may as well block google and other search engines)
Its not a matter of target the downloaders "unless your just hopeing to make some extra cash from out of court settlements"
It is just keep an eye on torrent sites see when something copyrighted is illigaly distributed then go and prossicute the uploader.
There really arent that many uploaders compared to downloaders and subsiquent seeders. and if you get rid of them a few more wil come, get rid of those. and less will come.. But targeting the downloaders?? you will proibably get 2/10 to stop downloading and mean while 8 more just figured out how you do it...

as for the nazi comment.. thats a bit rediculous.

 

[BigBlue1]

I have no problem with people downloading a trial version of something for free and then buying it if they like it, that's how I do most of the software I buy like the Adobe products, but those are free trials offered by the owner of the software on their site, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

"Downloders arent really commiting a crime because they cant know that i do not have distribution rights. "
Unless they are brain-dead they know that it is not the official site maintained by the property owner and if you are giving it away, and letting people download from your site, they should know it isn't legit. If they are unsure, they can email the owner or copyright holder and ask if it is a legitimate site before they download. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[SeekaX]

its not theft though.. your not taking some thing away from some one.

You are taking away revenue from the artist and his publisher. Just because you aren't stealing something physically doesn't mean you aren't stealing something.

and many people download stuff try it then buy it. "although thats mostly true for pc games due to online play not being available for pirates usually"
so they may download it and then buy it. or if they download it and think its terrible they then delete it.. and dont buy it. you could argue that if they didnt download it they would have bought it and never played it,

That's not a valid argument. You can't go into a store, steal a TV and come back a couple of days later to pay for it either. These days you can find all the information you need to consider a purchase on the internet.

Downloders arent really commiting a crime because they cant know that i do not have distribution rights.

That is a legal greyzone, mainly because pursuing all the downloaders would mean a huge effort.

If a shop decided to have a massive sale and sell some form of media for £0.01 when the publisher says the RRP is £199.99 That is not a crime. they could even give the things away for free. and thats not a crime, they are allowed to distribute it..
The same is true if i buy 1000 copys of some thing and give away 999 of them that is not a crime either.
so its a bit conveluted for people to think of downloaders "pirates arrr" as criminals..
when the Only people in the whole chain who are breaking any laws are the Uploaders..

That is because the store already paid the artist and publishers, thus the media copies are his and the price he sells them for is up to him. When you illegally download something the artist and the publisher have not been paid. That argument makes no sense at all.

Its rediculous how they target downloaders, and the hosting/torrent sites. when in reality the sites and downloaders arent actually doing anything wrong. and the only people they do not target are the criminals who are the uploaders..
and the only reason i can imagine they dont target the uploaders is because they gave the uploaders the right to disribute the media to get a list of downloaders. Which as i stated earlier means ther is no crime at all..

this piracy stuff is easy to shut down.. and its not a matter of telling isps to block websites. (honestly if you block a web site because it lets you search for a torrent file. then you may as well block google and other search engines)
Its not a matter of target the downloaders "unless your just hopeing to make some extra cash from out of court settlements"
It is just keep an eye on torrent sites see when something copyrighted is illigaly distributed then go and prossicute the uploader.
There really arent that many uploaders compared to downloaders and subsiquent seeders. and if you get rid of them a few more wil come, get rid of those. and less will come.. But targeting the downloaders?? you will proibably get 2/10 to stop downloading and mean while 8 more just figured out how you do it...

There is no money in prosecuting uploaders, by far not enough to cancel out the damages.
The whole 'downloaders didn't know the files were illegally acquired' shit is a legal loophole which should have been closed ages ago. That's like a group going to a store, one guy trashes the window, steals the stuff in the store and then gives it to the people waiting outside and then claiming that only the dude who broke the window committed a crime while the others 'didn't know he didn't have the right to do that' and are therefore innocent and can keep their stuff.

 

[Kushiro]

haha very long big post there with all the quotes. Either way I wonder how many out of those 10 million $300+ fines they are looking for.

The excuses people use to get out of persecution these days, then again with humanty there will always be some sort of injustice. Conflict of viewpoint etc etc etc. Everyone has their own truth...