dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1871

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail

Re: A film worth it?

said by Noah Vail:

So then, the MPAA's business interests, outweigh the business interests of the ISP and their downstream customers.
I think the blame is being misplaced here. This was a failure of the FBI. Why do they need to grab a ton of unrelated servers to perform their investigation? The MPAA just asked the FBI to investigate so they could protect their assets.

Let's be sure to keep this in perspective instead of wandering out into left field while chanting death to all copyright holders.

biggbrother
Premium Member
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI

biggbrother to Bit00

Premium Member

to Bit00
said by Bit00:

What about Core IP? What about Core IP's customers? Who is going to compensate them for their losses?
No one. It's called being "caught up" in a criminal investigation by the government. It's a way of life and happens to thousands of legitimate businesses every year.

If you own a convenience store and a criminal runs through your store with police in tow... guess what? Your closed for business and the yellow tape goes around it until further notice.

If you own rental property and the police come into your tenant's unit and kick down the doors and tear up the place, they ARE NOT going to reimburse you.

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

1 edit

Grail Knight to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail
How about placing the blame on the one or ones responsible and in this case that would not be the MPAA or the Feds but the uploader of the movie. Do you think that there are actions without reaction?

IF the owner of the company blames the Feds let him use the courts to recoup any losses. I am not part of his company nor a customer losing out on anything are you? His insurance carrier should cover the businesses that are put out and then his insurance company goes after the Feds for reimbursement.

The only thing that makes this story interesting are two things. The FBI & MPAA are involved.

When the dust settles the FBI will more then likely blame an overzealous employee or miscommunication and the servers should never have been confiscated. Standard SOP in the government. CYA

Edit* Got my connection back and finished my post. Removed one line item that did not apply.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned) to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
said by Matt3:

said by hopeflicker:

said by DufiefData:

It is absolutely worth it -- this is a theft
Hey! look, there's that word again.
Yep, there it is again. If you watch this and don't go see it at full price, it's theft. If you watch it and then go see it, eh, if I was a movie studio I wouldn't care.
It's not theft according to any legal definition. But, I suppose in DSR-World you can be your own lexicographer. So, proceed with your imaginary definitions . . .

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Uhhh, yeah! They (and who is "they"? you tell me) have more than one guy in PR (by a lot I expect)... it only takes one (and maybe it wasn't a PR guy--all the same to me), with or without someone's "blessing". I never said I thought they were particularly intelligent, and I already know they're not trustworthy.

Also, I'm only being slightly facetious. I mean, I don't think someone "on the outside" broke in to some vault and stole it. Yep, I'll wager that it was an inside job.

Regardless, it's a film I may never see, so I'm remarkably unconcerned.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

Bit00 to biggbrother

Premium Member

to biggbrother
"Caught up". This goes way beyond caught up.
Bit00

1 edit

Bit00 to mod_wastrel

Premium Member

to mod_wastrel
It's simple copyright infringement.

The xxAA folks want to call everything "theft" to over sensationalize it.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

1 recommendation

Matt3 to 67845017

Premium Member

to 67845017
said by 67845017:

It's not theft according to any legal definition. But, I suppose in DSR-World you can be your own lexicographer. So, proceed with your imaginary definitions . . .
Of course not. Oh, oops, except for this minor bill passed in 1999:

»www.techlawjournal.com/c ··· ault.htm

Note, the title of one of the included bills: S 1257, Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act.

I'd say that would fall under "any" legal definition. This copyright infringement isn't theft mantra is really old and lame. Every time it comes up, there is a new example dug up that refutes it.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

1 edit

67845017 (banned)

Member

lol. Please. Just because the title of a bill has the word theft in it, you think copyright infringement is theft? The title has little to do with the legal elements necessary to prove infringement. Show me the legal elements in the copyright statues that talk about theft.

I've been doing IP law for 15 years and never have we called it theft. Point me to a published opinion where a plaintiff won the case by pleading copyright infringement as theft. You won't find one.

Really what gets old is the clueless spouting off without any basis for their positions.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

1 recommendation

Matt3

Premium Member

said by 67845017:

I've been doing IP law for 15 years and never have we called it theft.
Even the courts can't decide what it is. The line can only be seen by those who choose to ignore it, or those who have such a narrow definition because they work in the field.

To the average person, it is theft. Period.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Oh, so now we've gone from a legal definition to an average person definition. Okay, whatever fits with your argument, go for it.

Bottom line is that copyright infringement as the laws are written presently is not theft. Period.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

said by 67845017:

Oh, so now we've gone from a legal definition to an average person definition. Okay, whatever fits with your argument, go for it.

Bottom line is that copyright infringement as the laws are written presently is not theft. Period.
Copyright infringement is mostly a legal & technical term. Theft, besides being a legal term, is also a generic term meaning to take something(goods, services, reputation, etc) that does not belong to you. Both terms can be used to apply to copyright infringement.

Those who go ballistic over using the word "Theft" when applied to copyright infringement, I suspect just don't like to see themselves as THIEVES, but don't see the same negative connotation in being called copyright infringers. It carries less moral weight against their actions.

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA

1 edit

hopeflicker

Premium Member

said by FFH5:
said by 67845017:

Oh, so now we've gone from a legal definition to an average person definition. Okay, whatever fits with your argument, go for it.

Bottom line is that copyright infringement as the laws are written presently is not theft. Period.
Copyright infringement is mostly a legal & technical term. Theft, besides being a legal term, is also a generic term meaning to take something(goods, services, reputation, etc) that does not belong to you. Both terms can be used to apply to copyright infringement.

Those who go ballistic over using the word "Theft" when applied to copyright infringement, I suspect just don't like to see themselves as THIEVES, but don't see the same negative connotation in being called copyright infringers. It carries less moral weight against their actions.
Tell me, how does it feel to steal money out of the pockets of TV networks when you fast forward through them pesky commercials? ohhhh, such taboo that i speak
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Copyright infringement is mostly a legal & technical term. Theft, besides being a legal term, is also a generic term meaning to take something(goods, services, reputation, etc) that does not belong to you. Both terms can be used to apply to copyright infringement.

Oh, please do teach me more!
Those who go ballistic over using the word "Theft" when applied to copyright infringement, I suspect just don't like to see themselves as THIEVES, but don't see the same negative connotation in being called copyright infringers. It carries less moral weight against their actions.
Or maybe some are attorneys that know better . . .

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

said by 67845017:

]Or maybe some are attorneys that know better . . .
I have never met a lawyer yet that understood morality. It seems to be drummed out of them in law school.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

1 edit

67845017 (banned)

Member

Get off your high horse. I've always fought copyright infringement as a lawyer. I've always been wary of many of the transport methods that clearly are used for infringement, even though there are legitimate uses.

Until you know me and how I think, keep your generalizations to yourself.