Source: CNet News. June 30th. Check it out Here.
A week after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden Warned that the government would start cracking down on illegal file sharing, the feds swooped in and seized assets belonging to operators of accused movie-pirating sites.
The government on Wednesday also took control of at least seven of the sites in question: Movies-Links.tv, Now-Movies.com, TVShack.net, Filespump.com, Planetmoviez.com, ZML.com, ThePirateCity.org, Ninjavideo.net, and NinjaThis.net. More than a dozen bank, investment, and advertising accounts were seized, and authorities served search warrants on residences in several different states.
Authorities are searching for operators of the sites as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, according to Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The crimes that the operators are accused of committing weren't clear, but some of the sites are accused of distributing film copies prior to their theatrical release.
As of 3 p.m. PDT, some of the sites were still operating, but government officials said they anticipated the sites would come under government control within hours.
The investigation involved multiple law enforcement groups, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ICE, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security.
Last week, Biden and Victoria Espinel, the U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator, told reporters that they wanted to send a message to counterfeiters and pirates that this administration was intent on protecting the nation's intellectual property. Espinel directed a statement at those people who trafficked in phony goods or unauthorized music and movies: "We have committed to putting you out of business."
ICE and the Department of Justice both suggested Wednesday that these types of seizures and investigations are just the beginning.
More to come
That's right boys and girls, the Federal Government is now shutting down websites and Law Firms owned by corporate movie makers are Suing Private Citizens who are using Peer to Peer programs like LimeWire and uTorrent. That's right, they're even shutting down Peer to Peer programs and Suing every day "Joe Blow" users who have downloaded Movies, Games, and MP3's. If you'd like the proof of this happening right now, there's some mess going on about the movie "Hurt Locker" which some guy shared on LimeWire. Now the makers of the movie are Suing the distributers such as the makers of LimeWire and even going as far as to file suite against 5,000 yet un-named people. Don't think they are, that they can't? They ARE!!! Here's Proof!!! The Government themselves have started shutting down domains and are petitioning ISP's for their users names and home addresses so that other law firms can also file suite against home users just for "watching" something online without even having downloaded it to their computer. Seen this picture anywhere lately?
Source: CNet News. June 11th. Check it out Here.
In Arizona, a law firm called White Berberian recently began advertising on its site that it will defend those accused of illegal file sharing by Dunlap Grubb & Weaver. That is the firm, which also goes by the name U.S. Copyright Group, that is filing lawsuits on behalf of filmmakers who claim their movies were pirated by thousands of peer-to-peer users.
In addition to the Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker," Dunlap Grubb represents about a dozen movies, including "Far Cry" and "Call of the Wild 3D." The law firm has said that it will sue more than 50,000 alleged file sharers.
So far, it appears thousands of people have received settlement offers from Dunlap Grubb and many are confused about their rights. Typically, people learn about being accused of violating copyright law from their Internet service providers, which inform them that they have received a subpoena to turn over their identity to Dunlap Grubb.
The law firm usually follows up with a form letter informing the accused that someone using their Internet protocol address was illegally sharing one of the films. Dunlap Grubb then tells the accused file sharer that they can settle the case for $1,500 if they move quickly. If they wait, the firm will charge them $2,500 and if they decide to fight it out in court, Dunlap Grubb can ask for up to $150,000
That's right, another 500,000 people are going to be sued. That's Half A Million People!!! Not rich people. Not Hard Core pirates. Not the people who ripped the movie and put it up on the Internet. Normal users or even parents who's kids installed LimeWire and the parents didn't even know what it was, much less that it was technically being used for something "Illegal". LimeWire is just the start too. Now that the Government is in on the action you can bet that all these other Peer to Peer services will be next, and that includes torrents.
It's odd though as I didn't think "Peer to Peer" programs had "Servers" that could be shut down that would stop a program from working but apparently they do. Some how they can shut down programs like LimeWire and uTorrent as well as sue the people who made it and are using it. ISP's are willingly handing over records of everything your IP downloads and every website you visit. Chances are if you even go to what will soon be a "black listed" site your name will go onto a "watch-list" or you'll soon be getting a statement from your ISP quickly followed by a court notice that you are being sued.
YouTube was granted a "Exception" because it actively takes pirated and copyrighted materials down and because it has plenty of content that is "User Made" and not copyrighted. Check out this article on CNet News about the differences between YouTube and LimeWire and how exactly one can be shut down and not the other.
Web copyright: YouTube up, Lime Wire down. Source: CNet News. June 30th
This is only the beginning everyone. The sh!ts hitting the fan and the common people are about to feel the pinch of the Heavy Hand of Corporate Government.
Very true.
Most of the times the punishment for a crime does not equate to the crime.
I however am not going to feel bad about it, especially since I don't go around committing crimes.
How does that saying go, 'If you can't do the time don't do the crime.'
Trying to make an argument that some punishment may be to sever for a crime although valid just seems a little strange when a person can choose not to do the crime.
I tend to keep things simple, it's so much easier getting through the day that way.
Just my opinion is worth as much as yours.
Sorry for the late reply, been busy with the v10.9 release of the Winstep Nexus dock and Winstep Xtreme.
Oh yes they do! That's were you are wrong, they will pirate anything that costs money (even only $1) if they can get away with it.
The only way you can stop them is by making the process of finding a pirated copy that actually works more hassle than it is worth it. And the funny thing is that, in their eagerness to get advertising dollars, the pirates are doing exactly that by posting a ton of fake 'get xxx serial, crack, etc...' pages on the web for popular software. Add to that the risk of infecting your system with a virus and/or a Trojan and you have a nice deterrent - but one that isn't strong enough.
On the other hand, if people can find a *working* pirate copy of your software just by typing its name in Google and having it show up on the first page, then have no doubt that sales will suffer. It's a delicate balance.
Stardock is also not pro-piracy like you seem to think. No business is, by definition. It's just that some companies, in their fruitless efforts to put a stop to software piracy, have gotten to the point of seriously inconveniencing the *legit* customer with their limitations, DRM and activation schemes. That's what Stardock (and I) are dead against.
Also, one of the reasons used often to legitimate software piracy, that 'what if I don't like it or it sucks' doesn't fly: plenty of software is trial based these days and it *still* gets heavilly pirated. You sir, may be an occasional pirate, but at least you are an enlightned pirate (or on the way there).
Most people who pirate software are not like that - they simple don't care who they are hurting, in truth, the very thought that they are actually hurting another human being (or a group of them) doesn't even cross their minds. Which is why I advocate that this should be treated as a cultural issue and that our children should be taught in schools and at home that software piracy is evil and hurts people. Go to the root of the problem.
People who download Barry Manilow should not be jailed on the grounds of diminished responsibility...
Hehehe... I'll pay that one. Rumour has it that he was playing one night in Vegas, and the only people in the audience were inmates of a loony bin on a rare outing. They were given the choice of visiting a sewage treatment plant or Barry Manilow for their annual outing... 30 seconds into 'I Write The Songs' and they all wished they had taken the sewage treatment plant.
yup ..tho locked away in an asylum for the criminally insane, for torturing any folks near by when they play it maybe called for....
[quote]People who download Barry Manilow should not be jailed on the grounds of diminished responsibility... yup ..tho locked away in an asylum for the criminally insane, for torturing any folks near by when they play it[/quote]
Now you know why the loony bin residents wished they had toured the sewage treatment plant instead.
Hearing it the first time... well they just flipped their lids.
Simple...
People who pirate Barry Manilow should be forced to listen to him.
Visions of A Clockwork Orange.
In a sound proof room.... so nobody hears them scream.
Some of you are equating the clicking of a button as harmful as emptying a company's bank account... The truth is people have limited funds which to spend however they can and are naturally going to try to get as much as they can for as little as possible. People will spend their money on something eventually... just because they didn't spend it on a CD or a Movie (that they can't afford in the first place) doesn't mean the economy is going to suffer or that business is going to fail. At the very most it shifts the profits away from these industries a small amount only because these are people who do not have the money to spend on a legitimate copy in the first place. Yes I understand the idea of intellectual property but also there is the fact that once digital media is created, it can be reproduced for essentially no cost. So when a company, trying to spin a profit, sells a CD for $20 when the real cost for that is essentially nothing, it is difficult to justify spending this much. So what is really going on here? You have people who can't afford the ridiculous price tag on some of this media but they are still able to enjoy it for free. I mean you have to look at each scenario and figure out what exactly is going on. What if there are two CD's that I would really like to buy, but unfortunately my income only allows me to get one of them. I have a friend who is into the same music that I am, and he has just enough money like me to get one CD also so he purchases the other one. Now what if after a while of listening we decide to let each other borrow each other's CDs for a while? Have we now committed a crime because we had not payed for the intellectual property and permission to listen to these pieces of music on demand? Neither one of us had the money to buy the other CD so the company isn't missing any profit off us, yet we get to enjoy more for no cost. If it's true for one case it's true for 500,000. Don't let the numbers fool you. Just because you have 500,000 people sharing music it still has the same moral equivalence in each act. And if you were to say "Yes, it is still a crime to share with one friend", then what about a case where you are simply letting them listen to it at your house? If this were a crime then the radio would be committing one every day putting music on the radio without charging people to listen and giving due to those who were featured. What the problem is, is that companies THINK they can get more money out of people because of the amount of people who listen to music, etc. However, there is still only so much money to go around for things like media and if sharing a CD with a friend is ILLEGAL, then and only then can they justify these law suits. And since it seems our government is pursuing this, it seems that we are headed down a very dark path of restrictions and greed.
WOT:DNR
Paragraphs are your friend
First, it would be nice for some paragraphs there.
Second, there is no justification for the commiting of a crime, period.
Like I said in a reply above, I don't go around commiting crimes.
I say 'Off with thier heads!', but then I am known to be rather emotional.
The problem with the "Piracy is great advertising and pirates go on to buy products" argument is that the decision of how to distribute a product belongs to the person/people/company that paid the money and put in the work to produce the game/movie/music. Even if it were true that piracy increases sales, it is the person who holds the copyright's decision whether to allow the product or a version of the product to circulate for free. Piracy is stealing. The only way to justify piracy is to argue against the concept of IP rights, which means the talented people who are producing the products you enjoy enough to steal stop making money and stop producing. This isn't about protecting large corporations it is about protecting creative and inventive people who keep our economy and culture moving forward.
So, I stole a TV the other day, and when I was arrested I just let them know that I couldn't afford one, and that if I liked the one I stole I'd recommend it to my friends and probably buy one later. Then I complained that Sony had been ripping me off on walkmen and stereos for years and I was just getting a little bit of that money back. Somehow they still threw me in jail.
Yep, paragraphs definitely are good!
There is a simple rule to follow here. Just because you cannot afford something does not give you the right to steal it. I see things I would love to have also, but I cannot afford them so I forget about it. I would love that new flat screen TV or that new car, but I cannot afford it. Gee, I think I will just steal it instead! What a philosophy!
As far as the lawsuits, they are perfectly in line I believe. Sure there are high amounts, but if you did not steal in the first place... you get the picture.
Buy it if you want it and can afford it, if you cannot afford it, forget it.
You completely misunderstand, they are not charging for the physical media but for the time, effort and creativity that went into producing the content (plus $.10 for the physical media).
But during the time of the swap of discs you have transferred Physical ownership to the other and Do not get to enjoy the use of that specific item. Eventually one or both of you might get tired of having to swap a disc and thus go out and buy the other, The co then would still get it's revenue.
Music sharing over the net is not the same as swapping a disc, as both of you now have copies of the music and can enjoy them at the same time..so there is no need to go out and purchase anything. The co looses revenue
No sharing a CD is not but copying that cd and giving it out to all your friends is.
I remember when being Poor was choosing between food or heat for the month now it seems poor is having to pick only one cd to purchase to play one ones $300 and up PC while surfing the net on the internet.
I find it superfluous to present the argument of lack of funds some use while transferring music to their $300 "minimum" PC so they can add it to their $350 Ipod.
I buy all my music from I tunes I buy the songs I want and not all the others on the CD I usually don't...costs 99 cents each, People cant save up 99 cents yet can afford all the extras to download and utilize the digital media? gimme a break..
Further more a lack of funds for toys does not justify the theft of luxuries...
You're running around the moral point though. It is not THEFT at all. You're not going taking money out of the company's wallet. They are trying to equate this with diminishing it's projected profits. You just told me sharing a CD is not illegal. But it's consequences for the company are the same in any case. Instead of a friend having to buy the CD to listen to it, he is able to enjoy it for free. Is that not the point? Otherwise there is no money lost and it does not affect the company at all. Why does it matter if the CD is shared, or a new one created, or if just 1's and 0's are transferred from one computer to another? And I understand how it has become cheaper to buy a song even if its only 99 cents now yes, so my example is hardly realistic that one would not be able to afford it eventually. The point isn't the dollar amount, it could be anything.
The point is what is morally equivalent. You're essentially saying that the morality lies in the action which is not what matters to the company, it is in the consequences of loss of profit for them that they're after. And by submitting to that then you are saying 500,000 of us can buy one CD and mail it to each other because physical property has changed from one to another so therefore it is not morally wrong. And if we were able to do this quickly enough (I know I'm losing people here with this thought experiment because it is an impossibility), then it would not be wrong EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY STILL ONLY SELLS ONE COPY AND LOSES MASSIVE PROFITS. So which is it? Is it still wrong? Or is it only okay because we can't pull it off fast enough like we could digitally? I would have to say it's not but we're getting at the real problem here. We know the company is due some sort of money for support of the intellectual property created, but how do you draw the line on who should pay what just to enjoy the thing created? Especially when it is only a product that's value lies in simply hearing or seeing it, this becomes very difficult with almost no physical product to speak of (the TV, Computer, CD, etc aside since it is simply a means to transfer music, movie which is the products of discussion here). Obviously the way they draw the line right now is wherever it will affect the company the most and that's redistribution even if there is no profit in a person doing so because they claim rights to the inital intellectual property.
All I'm really trying to argue is that I don't think that people are really 'stealing' at all. The difference is that there is no actual LOSS to the creator there is just less of a GAIN if any real difference at all in profit. So I don't think people should be subject to such harsh penalties that obviously these industries are pushing the government to enforce. But I do think that it is an issue that should be discussed further because even I am not so sure how to gauge any level of wrongness done and punishment due for such a thing. It is such a marginal amount of harm done IF ANY AT ALL. Maybe I should just read more to get my head wrapped around it better, because laws dealing with intellectual property are difficult to understand completely.
Philly...
For one, laws are created depending on what is conceived as JUST. Justice is something that depending on who you talk to, you will get a completely different viewpoint. Laws therefore can be flawed, and not necessarily take into account a moral right and wrong which I would say has more value intellectually than a piece of writing that was agreed upon once upon a time. You are aware I'm sure of some laws that were written that were later changed because they were found to be unconstitutional. And I hope you also realize that degrees of crime should be deserving of degrees of punishment (this 'off with the heads of all criminals' talk will not do...).
In light of this I'd rather figure out what is exactly the crime here, because it is clearly not the same as stealing in a traditional sense where you have taken away someone's property and made it your own. In essence, you have only created new property and made it exactly like that which someone else has designed (Let me know if you think I'm wrong here I'd like to hear other ideas on this). And the consequences of this lesson the ability of original owners of intellectual property to earn as much as they might have earned.
Lighstar...
I understand where you're coming from and I completely agree. You cannot just take something you see because you don't have money for it either, this is clearly stealing in this case. But with a movie or game or music this becomes difficult because the cost of redistribution is essentially nothing. So YOU are able to create your own without any significant cost, the original owner of property is not losing anything from this. They are instead simply NOT GAINING additional profit. I think the major difference here is the difference of stealing being the DIRECT LOSS of something changing property to someone else and the NOT GAINING of money that might have been. I think this is something they blur over in order to justify suits as such when it is something that needs careful consideration. There is very much a difference between me taking my buddy's guitar and him losing it and me copying his song so I can play it on my own guitar too (not selling my copied music mind you, we don't want to go there lol).
Also sorry about paragraphs, I will try harder from now on to arrange my thoughts so others have easier access to them
If you copy the data whether it be 1's and 0's on to another's pc or on to a cd to give away its unauthorized redistribution, and Copyright infringement. Transferal of ownership is not the same as duplication of a medium and passing it out to the masses..
I mean seriously why not just copy dollar bills on to your PC and print your own money? The government is not losing any thing right so it's ok? theres no direct loss right? till everyone stops working and the economy goes to trash...
As for the simplicity of the theft. so a car thief who can steal a car in less than 3 seconds should not be arrested, because it was too easy for them? Just because the crime has become simplistic in nature, it does not diminish the fact its illegal.
sorry but your argument's don't hold water..
The crime that was committed was one that was covered by an existing law.
First of all, I'm not arguing for piracy or taking any sides. It's clear that it is wrong. I'm arguing that stealing is not the same as copyright infringement involved in duplication of intellectual property. Many people on this discussion have already tried to equate the two and this is FALSE. Like someone else said, if a kid downloads a song illegally they're going to get all these outrageous fines etc, but if a kid steals that cd from a store, he'd likely get a slap on the wrist and CD taken back. The point is this new initiative is being pushed so hard just because of the record companies, movie industry etc. and it is NOT equal with the due punishment for the crime, which to me the crime seems relatively small compared to the punishment they threaten you with.
Eliminator, counterfeiting money is not stealing either, you should be able to see this difference. But it is of course wrong. The wrong here lies in when you try to trade your fake money for something of real value, you are in essence fraudulently trading someone something that they think holds value when in fact it does not. You're not drawing any parallels. It is wrong to conclude from my argument that anything else such as counterfeiting can be seen as a permissable act. I wasn't even permitting duplication of a medium either, simply arguing that it is different from stealing and would cause less real harm. So drawing bogus conclusions to simply dismiss me altogther isn't going to work. And I don't know where you got the idea that simplicity of a theft meant it was not as morally wrong... but that's incorrect also... I was arguing that sharing a CD is not seen as wrong so why couldn't people just keep transferring the CD around and sharing the music that way without duplication. Clearly you misunderstood that point. The idea is that there is nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, but the record company still doesn't see the additional profit that it wants (and everyone got to enjoy the media). Hope that clears it up.
Philly, in the court of law, yes you will be punished no matter your opinion if you are proven to commit a crime. However, there is more intelligence involved in the process itself to figure out what exactly the person did and what is to be determined in order to determine a punishment. The problem is that because sooo many people are doing it, it affects the profits that a company COULD be making off of those who did not have to pay for the enjoyment. Even if they aren't doing something that is so terrible in each instance, it becomes bigger as the more people do it. But I would not be able to make it out as something as bad as they are trying to do to recover money they feel is theirs.
Skeether makes the point as it seems that, and I am trying to parse this , if you take a tangible object, cash or A fungible commodity, then that is theft. As I have stated Piracy is not universally stated and understood to be theft! IP, Music, and Applications of Software, also Graphic Art are not clearly defined. Thus that really turns it into a moral issue, in my mind anyway. With that said again I feel that the use of a Government Entity to protect your profits is wrong and you should not be able to use your multinational corporation to make law.Unfortunately the Supreme Court seems to disagree so now we are really and truly fucked in the LAND OF THE FREE! Get your passport now while we still have a country to run away from!
And as much as I don't agree with LightStar's many other statements, I must agree that you avoid a whole shitload problems by not involving yourself in questionable actions!
Piracy is the 'unsanctioned' taking of prizes....typically boats and/or their cargo.
THAT was punishable by death.
Modern pirates get off lightly.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
