Comments on news posted 2012-10-15 10:40:22: Leaked documents suggest that AT&T will begin their "six strikes" entertainment-industry anti-piracy campaign starting on November 28. ..
If it's copyrighted, pay for it and download it from a legitimate source such as iTunes or Netflix.
Illegal downloading is a high tech form of shoplifting as it is similar to shoplifting a CD or DVD at Best Buy or Target. Downloading illegally is basically theft in my book.
If it's copyrighted, pay for it and download it from a legitimate source such as iTunes or Netflix.
Illegal downloading is a high tech form of shoplifting as it is similar to shoplifting a CD or DVD at Best Buy or Target. Downloading illegally is basically theft in my book.
If it's copyrighted, pay for it and download it from a legitimate source such as iTunes or Netflix.
Illegal downloading is a high tech form of shoplifting as it is similar to shoplifting a CD or DVD at Best Buy or Target. Downloading illegally is basically theft in my book.
I tried to follow your advice, but neither even tells you what resolution you are buying. They are scam artists and thieves compared to honest pirates.
If it's copyrighted, pay for it and download it from a legitimate source such as iTunes or Netflix.
Illegal downloading is a high tech form of shoplifting as it is similar to shoplifting a CD or DVD at Best Buy or Target. Downloading illegally is basically theft in my book.
I tried to follow your advice, but neither even tells you what resolution you are buying. They are scam artists and thieves compared to honest pirates.
I agree. Also you are forced to watch their ads. If you pay for something, you shouldn't be subjected to their ads.
I see dead people... they don't know they're dead.
So basically the MPAA and RIAA now spy on your browsing activity and everybody is OK with it?
I have to say, watching them slowly die would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn shady. And not only that, but they even have tax payers picking up the tab on a lot of their war on copy & paste.
If a customer has to pay $35 to contest it, shouldn't the accuser have to pay $35 for every IP accused of infringing?
I've said it before: why do we accept the word of any interested party when it comes to who is infringing? We wouldn't believe them if they claimed to spin straw into gold so why would we take a list of IPs based on their word?
You can't supply the court a list of license plate numbers and say "All these cars were speeding this morning. Cite the owners!"
Illegal downloading is a high tech form of shoplifting as it is similar to shoplifting a CD or DVD at Best Buy or Target. Downloading illegally is basically theft in my book.
While your position is quite admirable, I doubt many online users feel that digital acts of theft are actually criminal.. Its the new modern Robin Hood story.
Plus can you name off a Criminal case involving jail time or probation involving digital theft of copyrighted music or video, applications or such? Id love to read those cases.
Remember without criminal penalties to backup the theft.. the civil aspects are pointless as nearly every form of a financial judgment against you in America with the exception of government imposed judgments can be eliminated via bankruptcy.
illegal downloading is not theft in any way. theft requires loss of an item. call it what it is, copyright infringement. and the infringer is not the person downloading it. the infringer is the person supplying it.
This is exactly the kind of thing that should scare the shit out of the MPAA and RIAA.
I agree with you. Most people who pirate stuff would not be buying the content legitimately to begin with. Even if this system "worked," it won't result in significant numbers of people buying content... so who will the content industry blame next for faltering sales?
No, get your facts straight. Downloading unauthorized copyrighted material is illegal because it is an unauthorized duplication. Courts do and always will rule in favor of the copyright holder if sufficient evidence is available.
What about half the web pages you visit that contain copyrighted photos that are used without permission? Are you prepared to suffer some strikes because you are downloading those images to your computer?
illegal downloading is not theft in any way. theft requires loss of an item. call it what it is, copyright infringement. and the infringer is not the person downloading it. the infringer is the person supplying it.
So the CCI sniffs out IP's from public trackers and maybe some compromised private trackers. Bulks the warning emails to AT&T and others, once your strike tally counts up your walled.
So VPN to an offshore server, and connect to your tracker. Seem's easy enough to counter.
No, I definitely am not. I don't know where you guys get this false idea that only the uploading party is liable. Both parties are liable. The uploading party is typically the party that is punished but that does not make the downloader innocent.
Then you aren't going to have a problem from the MPAA/RIAA. No one is going to bother to enforce copyright in a market they aren't engaged in.
Meanwhile people want this stuff for a reason. If you are enjoying it, you should pay for it, support the artists, actors and companies that are putting it together.
To take it one step further, downloading is not even pursued civilly... only uploading. So there is a logical disconnect between the concept of 'downloading = shoplifting' argument and the way it is dealt with in court. A person who rips a CD and makes it available to others hasn't 'stolen' anything... all he/she did was piss off the record company because they think they would have made more money if the person didn't make it freely available.