dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
29
« I still wanna see it in theatersWolverine »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from A film worth it?
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD

DufiefData to Matt3

Member

to Matt3

Re: A film worth it?

It is absolutely worth it -- this is a theft that could cost an American company tens- to hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a gross theft of intellectual property and creative material and it has to be stopped.

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

hopeflicker

Premium Member

said by DufiefData:

It is absolutely worth it -- this is a theft
Hey! look, there's that word again.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 recommendation

Bit00 to DufiefData

Premium Member

to DufiefData
What about Core IP? What about Core IP's customers? Who is going to compensate them for their losses?

When it turns out that Core IP had nothing to do with it, the MPAA membership and FBI should be liable to reimburse Core IP and their customers for this avoidable interference in their business.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

1 edit

67845017 (banned) to hopeflicker

Member

to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker:

said by DufiefData:

It is absolutely worth it -- this is a theft
Hey! look, there's that word again.
Yeah, it's a knee jerk reaction by people when they call infringement theft. I suppose theft is much more glamorous sounding and attention getting than infringement.

That being said, theft is a possibility if the person without authorization took the media on which the movie was stored.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

Bit00 to DufiefData

Premium Member

to DufiefData
Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's copyright infringement.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707 to Bit00

Premium Member

to Bit00
I absolutely 100% agree with you and was coming here to ask that very same question. Let alone the businesses that have lost countless thousands or millions because of this, what about the 911 issues they caused? I'd hate to be the one that has to explain this when inevitably someone has been inconvenienced or worse by the lack of phone/911 service because of this.

And regarding the other businesses colocated there, there needs to be some kind of procedure in place to prevent collateral damage. The FBI had NO BUSINESS turning everything off like they did. I'd be willing to bet they stormed in at gunpoint and flipped every breaker they could find without any regards for what it might do. I realize most of them aren't computer savvy but I'll bet they don't do that again if it ruins the very data they needed to make the case because they caused a head crash on the drive.

swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

swhx7 to DufiefData

Premium Member

to DufiefData
Of course it's worth investigating. But it doesn't justify trampling on the rights and property of lots of innocent citizens or companies, and imposing large costs on them, when the investigation could be handled more intelligently by tracing the path of the leaked release in non-destructive ways.
lacklusterbb
join:2009-03-12

lacklusterbb to Bit00

Member

to Bit00
Actually, amendments to the copyright act have made copyright violations a criminal act in the U.S. It's unfortunate, but US lawmakers, at the urging of lobbyists for the film and music industry will probably keep ramping up the criminal penalties in response to uncontrollable actions in foreign countries that turn a blind eye to copyright violations. The US-based film and music industry has little influence in those countries (and most likely never will). Although the media in the US doesn't focus on it, we have plenty of working poor people in this country (and that number is swelling), but our government doesn't look at issues like price gouging or monopolistic practices that encourage price gouging. Foreign governments that turn a blind eye on copyright infringement generally believe their citizens shouldn't have to pay what western copyright holders charge, even though their citizens are benefiting from opened US trade and the shifting of jobs from the US to their countries. The movie studios and music industry had best look at their business models as more and more US-based production disappears. When the majority of the citizenry in this country are working minimum wage jobs, they're going to have a hard time giving away their product here, let alone selling it at inflated prices.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail to DufiefData

Premium Member

to DufiefData
said by DufiefData:

It is absolutely worth it -- this is a theft that could cost an American company tens- to hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a gross theft of intellectual property and creative material and it has to be stopped.
So then, you'd voluntarily bring your company's business to a halt, for a week or more, if it would aid an MPAA affiliate investigate a leak after the fact?
NV
Noah Vail

Noah Vail to JoelC707

Premium Member

to JoelC707
Like everyone else on Earth, Law Enforcement isn't perfect.

If law enforcement escapes some sort of deterrent against poor judgment, we'll have more poor judgment from law enforcement.

It's a lot easier to support LE Agencies when I can trust them.

NV

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

1 edit

Grail Knight to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail
quote:
So then, you'd voluntarily bring your company's business to a halt, for a week or more, if it would aid an MPAA affiliate investigate a leak after the fact?
It stands to reason that usually a crime must be committed first so any investigation is after the fact. What are you getting at here?

Of course there can be investigations before a crime is committed to prevent a crime but that is not what happened here according to the news report.

As for companies voluntarily halting production for an investigation is this anything new?

Edit* Added more.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

said by Grail Knight:
quote:
So then, you'd voluntarily bring your company's business to a halt, for a week or more, if it would aid an MPAA affiliate investigate a leak after the fact?
It stands to reason that usually a crime must be committed first so any investigation is after the fact. What are you getting at here?
I'm trying to determine if your support for 'The Cause' extends into to paying real life penalties.
said by Grail Knight:

Of course there can be investigations before a crime is committed to prevent a crime but that is not what happened here according to the news report.

As for companies voluntarily halting production for an investigation is this anything new?
So your answer to my question is...

NV

Grail Knight

Premium Member
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla

Grail Knight

Premium Member

Real life penalties happen. I have no issue with this other then if it is indeed effecting emergency services then that needs to be restored ASAP.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

said by Grail Knight:

Real life penalties happen. I have no issue with this other then if it is indeed effecting emergency services then that needs to be restored ASAP.
So then, the MPAA's business interests, outweigh the business interests of the ISP and their downstream customers.

That is, if the MPAA suffers a financial loss of some kind, then it is acceptable to begin a process of burdening other (read: smaller, less politically connected) businesses financially, until the MPAA reaches their desired goal.

Since this is a good thing, to you, are you willing to participate in the process, by sharing in the financial burden?

Would you send a meaningful check to the ISP to offset their loss, or is that where you draw the line?

NV

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel to Bit00

Member

to Bit00
When it involves someone taking some 99 cent songs, they like to call it copyright infringement. When it involves multi-million dollar movies, they call it IP theft. I generally hold to the old school, traditional definition: taking something that doesn't belong to you that wasn't given to you by its owner has always been theft. Of course, that's what the FBI warnings attached to movies tell you. It is disappointing, though, to see the FBI in bed with the Maf-IAAs... no good will come of it. I also have no doubt that the movie was "released" by the film's PR agents because they know that doing so will only increase the film's gross--loads of free advertising. (Of course, if the film's a stinker... meh.)

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

FFH5

Premium Member

said by mod_wastrel:

I also have no doubt that the movie was "released" by the film's PR agents because they know that doing so will only increase the film's gross--loads of free advertising. (Of course, if the film's a stinker... meh.)
Do you really think the PR guys would do that and THEN call in the FBI to investigate and risk being arrested?

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

Matt3 to hopeflicker

Premium Member

to hopeflicker
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.
Matt3

Matt3 to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail
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
« I still wanna see it in theatersWolverine »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from A film worth it?