Slashdot Mirror


More Popcorn Time Users Sued

An anonymous reader writes: The torrent-based video streaming software Popcorn Time has been in the news lately as multiple entities have initiated legal action over its use. Now, 16 Oregon-based Comcast subscribers have been targeted for their torrenting of the movie Survivor. The attorney who filed the lawsuit (PDF) says his client, Survivor Productions Inc., doesn't plan to seek any more than the minimum $750 fine, and that their goal is to "deter infringement." The lawsuit against these Popcorn Time users was accompanied by 12 other lawsuits targeting individuals who acquired copies of the movie using more typical torrenting practices.

94 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. after the right people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's good that they're actually going after the infringes not the company this time.

    1. Re:after the right people by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even more interesting is the attorney who's pursuing this. Carl Crowell (based out of Salem, IIRC) is pretty damned prolific about this - enough that he has a rather slick operation (see article) that chews through a lot of these each month. I find it interesting that they're willing to settle for $750/ea (though IMHO that's still a bit too high), while most settlements average $5k-$7.5k or so.

      Like most copyright suits, he almost always gets the money via settlement. It all still hinges on IP addresses, the ISP, and how well they keep records, though. I'm guessing that Popcorn Time likely blares your IP addy out nice and loud for the world to see by other torrenters, though one would wonder about sharing a movie in order to sue other sharers over the same movie...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. "...doesn't plan to..." by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    but will, eventually.

  3. WHOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hold the fucking phone. They're seeking damages that won't financially ruin entire families, and whose effects won't be felt generations down the line?

    What the fuck?

    1. Re:WHOA by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're seeking damages that won't financially ruin entire families, and whose effects won't be felt generations down the line?

      Unlike Survivor itself.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:WHOA by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Nevermind the fact that the poor bastards they're suing are already suffering from having to use Comcast as an ISP.

    3. Re:WHOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have learned something that civilized society has known for a very long time.

      High severity of punishment is not an effective deterrent. High likelihood of getting caught is an effective deterrent.

      Ramping up monitoring and blanketing infringers with minor fees that they would rather pay than fight will further the media group's agenda much better than permanently impoverishing single moms after wildly expensive court battles.

      They have not become kinder. Just wiser.

    4. Re:WHOA by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't that be the perfect defense? "Your Honor, how could my clients have possibly watched a movie, illegally or otherwise, with Charter as their ISP?"

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:WHOA by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      It's a Fine. Not damages. I'm not sure how it works across the pond, but where we live, a fine goes straight to government, not individuals/corporations.

    6. Re:WHOA by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Hold the fucking phone. They're seeking damages that won't financially ruin entire families, and whose effects won't be felt generations down the line?

      What the fuck?

      What the quick buck more likely. They no doubt figure it's easier (not to mention more realistic) to get 750 than 750,000.

      Of course 750 for a single film is still ridiculous.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  4. If their goal is to deter infringement by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then they should leave Popcorn Time users alone. That app does more to deter infringement than anyone.

  5. I have the right to watch it. by SlithyMagister · · Score: 1

    I paid a fee to a cable company which gives me the right to watch any movie they are currently playing.
    It should not matter where I get it from.

    1. Re:I have the right to watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I paid a fee to a cable company which gives me the right to watch any movie they are currently playing.

      It should not matter where I get it from.

      I don't think it works that way...

    2. Re:I have the right to watch it. by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      should be fine as long as you didn't torrent it, because that would mean you giving slices of it to others as you obtained it

    3. Re:I have the right to watch it. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      i am no friend of the idea of intellectual property, but it doesn't help to be delusional about how law works

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:I have the right to watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First of all if you're torrenting it then it's basically out there for the world to download from your machine - so you're at least enabling infringement. Second, your viewing of any particular media may be subject to other requirements such as submitting to periodic advertising. Shifting media would allow you to skirt around those secondary provisions. We can pretend these things aren't our problem but the final price they're offering factors in all of their rights, licenses, and third-party advertising dealings. They're obliged to honor their contracts and so are we.

      Not that this is right, but it's law. The system is set up to throw you just enough peanuts that you won't get pissed off. I gave up on media a long time ago just because it's all crippled crapware these days. Even the adverts are interrupted with adverts. My PC is hobbled to near-uselessness with crapware installed by Lenovo so I just work on Mac.

    5. Re: I have the right to watch it. by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Knowingly receiving infringing content is also considered copyright infringement in many jurisdictions.

      If you want to try and make a case for not knowing that the content you were torrenting was infringing, well.... good luck to you.

    6. Re: I have the right to watch it. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      look, if you want to act like wesley snipes and put your faith in some completely made up bullshit, have fun. but stop trying to sell insane here, nobody is buying it

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:I have the right to watch it. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      They installed software to stream movies not share them. There is a major difference in use, the software is sharing in the background without the seeming activity of the user and the user has no way of knowing whether the content, the specific copy they are watching is legal or not. This is being prosecuted in the US because no loser pay laws (so the defendants lose either way, either pay for their legal defence or pay the privately instituted fine with the power of corrupt government), in other countries with loser pays laws because lawyers wanting to make a name for themselves would take on the case with the aim of winning and making the claimants pay when they fail to prove their case against the actual individuals rather than an arbitrary IP address.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:I have the right to watch it. by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My PC is hobbled to near-uselessness with crapware installed by Lenovo

      We've recently purchased some Lenovo machines, and yes, they came with a metric assload of shitty software that nobody could possibly use or want, and that soaked up RAM and CPU like a drunk in a vineyard. But you do know you're allowed to uninstall all that shovel-ware, right? And if you don't know what to remove or how to uninstall them yourself, a useful tool is the PC Decrapifier, which is so simple anyone can run it.

      The Decrapifier is not perfect, though, as the authors seem to be dodging some legal lines by not being particularly aggressive in what they recommend you remove. And it won't get everything. My sister asked me to help her as her machine had slowed to the point of unusability. At some point her machine had become infested by some particularly nasty McAfee "free" malware that required a ludicrous amount of effort to destroy. It took me far too long to discover I had to surf to their site to download a custom uninstall tool. I think I spent almost two hours downloading updates and scrubbing the malware from three machines simultaneously. But once all the crapware was gone, and they had current patches, they actually became some decent machines. (Then I had to go home and take a shower, because that McAfee software made me feel filthy.)

      I consider that wasted time as an expense that jacked up the cost of owning the machines by a couple hundred dollars. It would not be worth the investment on a cheap Lenovo, which I would never recommend unless you have the nothing but time to waste, but as I was getting a big SSD, fast CPU, hi res screen, and lots of RAM, I overlooked it. But I'm not forgetting it.

      Lenovo, if you're reading this, know that I'm the senior buyer for all computer and electronic equipment purchased by my two extended families, and that $20 in kickbacks you got for installing the shitware on my machine will never recoup the costs of even one of the never-buy-Lenovo recommendations I've been handing out. Multiply that by the thousands of nerds who feel like I do, and that's millions of units you're not selling because of your own stupidity.

      --
      John
    9. Re: I have the right to watch it. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But I don't know if it is attributed as public domain, Creative Commons, or a copyright until I have it

      You can keep telling yourself that... it doesn't make it true. Especially since by your own admission:

      . If [the copyright notice] were in the beginning, I'd immediately delete it before watching

      So yeah.... you know. It's unlikely you'd convince anyone else that you didn't, if the matter came up, and it's probably grounds for your ISP to terminate your service if they knew about it.

    10. Re:I have the right to watch it. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      But you do know you're allowed to uninstall all that shovel-ware, right?

      Lenovo bakes shit into their ROM chips so BIOS/UEFI reinfects Windows machines with their shit every time you boot.
      There have been a slew of stories about it lately.

    11. Re:I have the right to watch it. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      ...the user has no way of knowing whether the content, the specific copy they are watching is legal or not.

      For the kind of content you are talking about, you'd think the fact that they didn't pay for it, or that it wasn't being provided by someone they would have reasonable basis to believe was reputable might be a fairly good indicator, don'tcha think?

    12. Re:I have the right to watch it. by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Loser pay laws discourage poor people from suing corporations if they might have to pay for expensive lawyers and court costs.

    13. Re:I have the right to watch it. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It does not discourage the poor when they have rich high priced lawyers who can cash in on the court case. Logically in a civil court case the loser should pay as they could have settled without the court.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:I have the right to watch it. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have never seen an idiot box, hmmmmm?!? (hint, hint). Lots of free to air stuff all over the place, in fact ten of billions of internet pages are powered by it, but of course pigopolists will always lie whenever greed demands.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:I have the right to watch it. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Only the lojack software is baked in, if I recall correctly. I haven't touched a lenovo in awhile...

    16. Re: I have the right to watch it. by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      You don't have to upload.
      I kick/ban peers. Seeds are what's important to me.
      Also those little slices are nothing and get deleted if you don't get the whole block from the same source. So when I kick them they auto delete whatever they got from me.

      You're a 'take a penny...what was the rest, again?' kinda guy, aren't you?

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    17. Re:I have the right to watch it. by kuzb · · Score: 1

      It matters because you're retransmitting it to other people who do not have the rights. Your agreement to license this content does not cover redistribution.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    18. Re: I have the right to watch it. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Hilarious it is, if you think a court is going to swallow that pile of bullshit

  6. that 750 seems a little convenient... by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The goal is to deter infringement

    and avoid judicial scrutiny. The RIAA for example has long had an infringement website where you can "pay" your "settlement" should you receive one and dont wish to be burdened by your constitutional right to a trial by jury for what --unless all those DVD warnings are wrong-- is a federal felony.

    the problem is if this becomes a federal trial, media companies and their attorneys have to do things like disclose evidence. depending on the nature, and how far down the rabbit hole defense wants to go, media companies understand they can eventually begin to risk the legality or constitutionality of the DMCA itself. They can call severe attention to the disparaging, clandestine, and overzealous nature of copyright itself and in turn through a simple federal case could open the door to the possibility of copyright reform. In some cases, like the well published instances where media companies file lawsuits totalling in the millions against child plaintiffs or single mothers, the damages can be knocked down to a fraction of what it costs them to prosecute something like this or worse, thrown out entirely.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:that 750 seems a little convenient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This comment bugs me a lot. It seems like media companies are screwed no matter what they do. If they sue for the maximum amount, they're accused of being greedy bastards who destroy people's lives with excessive judgments. If they sue for the minimum amount, they're accused of intentionally trying to avoid judicial scrutiny. It seems like the only way to make some people happy on Slashdot is for media companies to allow their works to be pirated and not take legal action to prevent it. That's just not fair, because the authors of creative works have a Constitutional right to the exclusive rights to those works for a limited amount of time.

      There are many abuses of the system such as the lack of penalty for a false DMCA takedown notice, excessive penalties, and ridiculous extensions on copyright protection. This hardly seems like an abuse to me.

    2. Re:that 750 seems a little convenient... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      $750 seems convenient because it's the statutory minimum allowed by law. The law allows for either actual damages and profit, or statutory damages of $750-30k unless it was willful infringement, then the upper limit is $150k. Actual damages/profit is impossible to prove in this case so $750 would be the minimum.

      Also, because they are being accused for sharing the same work as a collective, I believe that $750 gets split up between all parties, or if one party pays it the other parties are not individually liable for more. I believe there was one or more recent infringement cases where this issue came up because one defendant had already paid and then they went after more, but couldn't because the infringement had already been "paid for".

    3. Re:that 750 seems a little convenient... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      In your senario, you imply that the customer would have purchased the movie if they had not downloaded it. You can't PROVE that they would have done that, so you can't prove that 1 download = 1 lost sale.

      For uploading, it's impossible to determine what actual damages are. How many copies did they upload? Partial or full copies? What's the threshold for number of bits or bytes that must be seeded before infringement happens to count as 1 sale lost? The only thing the plaintiff can prove is how much they got. And if that is all they have, actual damages for uploading that would be provable would be 0 because they already owned the work.

      So in other words, it's not really provable exactly how much actual damage was done, like I originally said.

    4. Re:that 750 seems a little convenient... by zlives · · Score: 2

      how are "Popcorn users " "profit from illegal distribution"

    5. Re:that 750 seems a little convenient... by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      While I do not disagree with your sentiment, the problem with your notion here is that *actually* the user *did* distribute a copy. They used bit torrent, and that protocol is *designed* around downloaders being uploaders. Using bit torrent is the very nature of distribution. And the penalties apply because the *reason* why the bootleggers are fined is because they cost the copyright owner sale opportunity.

      Now, the nature of bit torrent means that the distribution is diffuse and it is not as clear that the copyright holder lost a sale (if someone is willing to buy from a bootlegger/counterfeiter that implies some willingness to pay for the actual product whereas a file sharer may have no intention of ever paying for anything).

      However, they still lost the sales opportunity and the argument is really about how much that opportunity is worth. Naturally, it is hard to prove how many sales a bootlegger/counterfeiter cost the copyright holder so the number of units seized stands as a proxy. That seems fair enough: the greater the volume the more items the criminal will most likely have at hand when caught.

      Using the number of claimed connections with bit torrent might seem like a fair proxy at first blush, but is really meaningless given the nature of the protocol. Instead, a better proxy might be to use the market value of the item with some factor for popularity to factor in how much the individual pirate was aiding other pirates. Even better would be detailed network logs that showed the amount of outbound traffic for a title, but it is unlikely anyone other than the NSA could really run that down so using box office receipts of a movie (for example) seems like a reasonable proxy.

      This is a case where technology *does* call for a change to existing laws. While the old methods still apply for traditional bootlegger/counterfeiter outfits, addressing the community nature of bit torrent where a "customer" is also a distributer without any ready stocks in hand (copies) to evaluate the scope or scale of the operation is an issue that could not have existed without technology.

  7. How by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    How are they finding these people? The article doesn't really say.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:How by timrod · · Score: 2

      They're finding them the same way they find people on normal torrents - Popcorn Time is basically a torrent client with streaming video built in. They have one of those "piracy protection" firms sit on the torrent and gather IPs, then subpoena the ISPs to find out who had the offending IP address at the time they saw it in the swarm for the torrent. From there, all it takes is a few threatening letters and a legal team backed by the deep pockets of Big Media.

    2. Re:How by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      so you are saying that popcorn time does not provide a vpn (or even instruct people that vpn is the key to safety; the right vpn, of course)?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:How by is+as+us+Infinite · · Score: 1

      Why would it? And to extend that question: why would it for free?

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .
  8. Terrible movie by minkowski76 · · Score: 1

    Torrented it from KAT. Godfuckingawful "film". It's like Salt without any of that film's superior aspects. Immediately deleted it. To think people are being sued for $750 for a film that isn't worth what Wal-Mart would charge for it from their discount bin is shocking, and more evidence that the law in the US is easily perverted for profit.

    1. Re:Terrible movie by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 2

      16 x $750 = $12K. You would think the lawyer fees would be at least that when it's all said and done. And like this is going to "deter infringement" for the masses...

      --
      Karma: Bad
    2. Re:Terrible movie by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Anybody who follows copyright infringement news would've quit by now if they cared. Or they would use a VPN.

  9. Life is not that difficult ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ... to understand:

    Pirating is illegal.

    We're not taking questions from the audience, because that's all we're going to say about that.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're not taking questions from the audience

      Why not?

    2. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Why is that all you're going to say about that? Are you Forrest Gump from the "Viet-fucking-nam" scene or something?

    3. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Pirating is illegal.

      In which country?

      Something online possibly being illegal somewhere at some time to someone is about the single most complicated thing about life right now.

    4. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      We will continue to treat all individuals equally and we stand by our pledge to protect the planet, while sustaining our continued economic growth as we adjust our business model in the forward-going directionalized mission to be competitive in a volatile market where shareholder confidence is a parameter that we recognize and appreciate is a futuralized initiative-driven wide scope paradigmed pledge to demarginalize those on the periphery of the broad customer base that we feel is essential to the revenue stream, on a profitized, positional approach to optimizing the talent channels of our employees.

      In summary:

      ... that's all we're going to say about that.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by Kasar · · Score: 2

      Over 400,000 federal laws and regulations (even government agencies can't come up with a solid number). Then there are the state, county, and municipal laws. It's a common joke in law school that ever person over the age of 18 is guilty of some federal crime. This is why the NSA mass data gathering and archival is an issue, out of control legislators have created a joke of a legal system, representative of anything but a free society, wherein a database of everything on a person can probably produce something to threaten them with if they become interesting.

      --
      vi? Who's that?
    6. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And yet amazingly, piracy, by definition, is illegal.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      Drinking out of the wrong water fountain used to be illegal, too. The law is essentially constructed to benefit some people at the expense of others.

    8. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      Courts have been ruling that use of the term "piracy" is inadmissible obfuscation. Simply copying and assisting in copying data does not involve raping or pillaging anybody and is not theft.

    9. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Pirating is illegal."

      No its not. When they abolished public domain they reneged on their side of the social contract. There is therefore no obligation for us to uphold our end of the bargain.

      Until such time as public domain is reinstated... there is no such thing as copyright.

    10. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Needs more synergy. And cowbell.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Simply copying and assisting in copying data does not involve raping or pillaging anybody and is not theft.

      You seem to be not using torrents properly.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      social contract

      Your social contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
      Please try referencing laws that actually exist.

    13. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Oh you are definitely going to have to provide a citation for that, since piracy has been used to mean copyright infringement for hundreds of years.

    14. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Where piracy is not piracy is most of the world, where only wide spread distribution is in any way considered illegal and someone downloading a song amount to a breach of contract. For example see the current trends in Australia where a movie studio is suing hundreds of people and all they may be liable for is the cost of the movie.

      Piracy in most of the world is a civil issue, not a criminal one. Legality is based on case laws, and for the most part the cases on online piracy have not been written. While we're at it again tell me your view on cross border legal issues. Something is legal in your country but not in another, you're based in one, I'm based in the other, was the act itself illegal?

      If you think this is simple you have not been paying attention for the past 10 years.

    15. Re:Life is not that difficult ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And yet copyright infringement is not piracy in any legal definition. Also mostly it's not illegal but rather a contractual / civil law issue between two parties.

    16. Re: Life is not that difficult ... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So is running a Taxi service without proper licensing. Why isn't torrenting getting the same pass? It's all for the sake of capitalism bringing people a product they want right?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    17. Re: Life is not that difficult ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You got a problem with taxis, bring it up with people who give a shit.

      I don't use taxis.

      I did once.

      ONCE!

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  10. Use a VPN, there's even one build in. by grub · · Score: 4, Informative


    Use a VPN, there's even one built in. Just need to sign up.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Use a VPN, there's even one build in. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Just need to sign up.

      :-) Neat trick

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Use a VPN, there's even one build in. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      NO, do NOT use a VPN. All VPNs are subject to court order to tap and trace your ass.

      That's not a law in every country in the world.

    3. Re:Use a VPN, there's even one build in. by grub · · Score: 1

      FrootVPN.com based in Sweden keeps no logs. There are others.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  11. Re:honest anon assessment by Kasar · · Score: 1

    The VPN exit IP will still be available, so your information would be available by subpoena if your VPN host keeps logs. I'm not sure if they're mandated to by law, but it sounds like a law the MPAA would have bought from Congress by now.

    --
    vi? Who's that?
  12. Re:honest anon assessment by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    That's why you need to connect to your VPN through a proxy.

  13. Re:prove it by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Curious what is the IP address map of all the piggyback Xfinity public
    WiFi access ports and how difficult is it to impersonate a real authorized user.

    I am very tempted to never use my "normal" Comcast connection.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  14. Re:honest anon assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. That is why you simply use a paid VPN/VPS whatever-IT-service-you-name-it not in the USA.

  15. It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Copyright laws are the only things preventing someone from immediately printing & selling (or giving away) their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter. You wouldn't allow that so why do you think it's okay just because it's music or movies and done on the internet.

    Sure, you can get away with it...but at some point, for most people, life becomes more about right & wrong than what you can get away with.

    1. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      If there's money to be made from Harry Potter, then J. K. Rowling should get it, but there shouldn't be any right that money can be made from Harry Potter.

      Selling Harry Potter without giving Rowling her cut is immoral, but free copying of Harry Potter, not so much. What's the moral difference between reading a torrented ebook of Harry Potter and checking it out of the library?

    2. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the library has paid for it. And can only lend it to one person at a time.

    3. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by renderhead · · Score: 1

      Are you insane? Are you suggesting that most people would approve of the uncontrolled distribution of pharmaceuticals on a mass scale?

      Of *course* we shouldn't allow that! Not only is it tremendously dangerous to allow just anyone with a 3D printer in their garage to sell drugs, it also would bankrupt the pharmaceutical companies. That might not sound so bad, given their reputation for greed and heartlessness, but they are also known as "the place that new drugs come from." They could stand to be taken down a peg, but we need at least some of them to survive.

      In short, it would be MUCH, MUCH worse to allow free distribution of Soliris than it is to allow copyright infringement of movies.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

    4. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I may download Harry Potter from someone who legally purchased a copy.

      Would it be immoral for a library to lend a book out to more than one person at a time if it were possible? On the contrary, libraries would better serve their purpose.

    5. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Copyright laws are the only things preventing someone from immediately printing & selling (or giving away) their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter. You wouldn't allow that

      What? Yes I would; of course I would. I think that is perfectly moral and ethical behavior.

    6. Re:It benefits content creators over freeloaders. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can get away with it...but at some point, for most people, life becomes more about right & wrong than what you can get away with.

      Clearly you and I have very different conceptions of right and wrong. I believe using force to punish somebody for printing and selling their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter is wrong. To me it's so clearly wrong it's hard to even explain it to those who think otherwise. It's like we are from totally different cultures or something.

  16. Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by Brannon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or better yet, go to the library, check out a good book, and read it.

    1. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never paying for a movie, never again.

      Never fucking ever.

      I *tried* playing by their rules once. Turns out, I was not allowed to use the tv-out on my graphics card, to view the dvd I *bought*, on my tv.

      Fuck them. They are *not* trying to be fair or just. Do not be fucking fooled. Do *not* fall into the "you gotta pay, you freeloader, you're stealing" guilt-trip. Because when i PAID for it, I got screwed over.

    2. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am that cameraman.

      I'm off with an illness just now, but I'm not being paid the sick pay they're obligated to pay me. They are making a lot of money off me, but refuse to pay what they owe.

      Fuck 'em. From my perspective, do what you like: I don't suffer because you pirate. I suffer because the owner is a greedy, selfish cunt.

    3. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      At that point, you fire up something like DVDFab and make an ISO with the copy protection garbage stripped out. Then you should be able to use VLC to play the ISO and output to your TV.

      Pretty simple rocket surgery.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by chefren · · Score: 1

      Or download the movie from the Internet which is easier, not to mention no more illegal in some countries. No rocket surgery should be needed to lawfully view the DVD you bought in your own home according to the terms of the EULA. If it's needed, the product's quality is inferior and the main argument for buying the thing in the first place is weakened.

    5. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1

      I think I saw the movie about that...

      --

      ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
    6. Re:Or, you know, just pay for the fucking movie. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Like what? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  17. Watch your tone young one by lucm · · Score: 1

    look, if you want to act like wesley snipes and put your faith in some completely made up bullshit, have fun. but stop trying to sell insane here, nobody is buying it

    It's Mr Wesley Snipes, and the guy is too badass to put faith in anything but his skydiving skills. He's so dangerous they had to unfreeze Cobra Stallone to stop him from killing the guy who produced Don't Fear The Reaper, and on his way to save the UN by winning a street basketball game he even stopped to jam with the boys at the jazz club. He's a true Renaissance man, he's up there with Steven Seagal (the blues singer sharpshooter cop who broke James Bond's wrist just for kicks).

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Watch your tone young one by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no Blade reference

      i give it 6/10

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  18. Re:Move to Canada by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I always figure that if I get fined I'll preemptively pay for the next offense and then use their cashing of the check to be an agreement that I can pirate at will until they catch me again and, at that point, I've already paid for it. I can almost guarantee that they'll cash that check... Try as I might, nobody has sent me even a single letter.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  19. Quit trying to justify it. by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

    Everyone comes in these threads trying to justify piracy with some sort of legal/ethical spin. Let's just call it like we see it. Piracy is easy, low risk and near free. It's also a near-victimless crime. The only victim is a media conglomerate that hauled in more money than they know what do do with. In fact, in 2015, 21st Century Fox had a larger revenue in 3 months than my entire Canadian province did in a year. It's hard to be sympathetic when they bitch and complain about what amounts to pennies for them.

    Support the indies.

    1. Re:Quit trying to justify it. by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      Everyone comes in these threads trying to justify piracy with some sort of legal/ethical spin. Let's just call it like we see it.

      I see it in legal and ethical terms, so that's how I call it. Imagine for a second that we discovered that there was life on Mars... and they were copying our movies. Would anyone suggest that gave us a right to invade, and seize their real property? Now, what ethical principle differentiates this from one country seeking to do the same to another, or one individual seeking to do the same to their neighbour? The US Constitution based copyright on an aim "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"... before movies or sound recording were invented, and when the only way to copy a book besides writing it out by hand was to set up a printing press. Could the framers of the constitution have imagined how invasive copyright law would become? Is it now a reasonable way "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? How much does the movie Survivor do for science or the useful arts anyway? I haven't seen it, but I'd guess none.

  20. The automatic update does not work anymore: by e70838 · · Score: 1

    I get the error:
    http://ppa.launchpad.net/webup... 404 Not Found
    Is there a new address to use ?

  21. Piracy should be prosecuted by xororand · · Score: 1

    I think we all agree that attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them should be prosecuted.
    Please don't confound copyright infringement with piracy.
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Piracy

  22. An IP Address is not an identity by failwyn · · Score: 1

    I thought the courts already ruled that an IP Address cannot be used it identify a person... http://techland.time.com/2012/...

  23. Can't compete with piracy w/o making lawful copies by tepples · · Score: 1

    The film and television industry is failing even these buzzwords.

    forward-going directionalized mission to be competitive

    A mission that the industry is failing.

    You can't "be competitive" with piracy if you refuse to make lawful versions of works available. I understand some of the rationale behind the Disney sales moratorium cycle, but where's the authentic DVD of Song of the South?

    pledge to demarginalize those on the periphery of the broad customer base

    A pledge that the industry is failing.

    "Those on the periphery of the broad customer base" demand genuine copies of more obscure TV series like Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea. Yet these copies were never made available to the public.

    that we feel is essential to the revenue stream

    A revenue stream that the industry is leaving on the table.

    I recognize that some titles, such as Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, don't have quite enough quantity demanded to justify a full scale production run and retail promotion campaign. But they could still be made available as burn-on-demand DVDs sold directly from the studio's web site.

    ... that's all we're going to say about that.

    In that case, you leave me with no choice but to have the last word.

  24. you can see horror movie and popcorn by babara2038 · · Score: 1

    Never fucking ever. I *tried* playing by their rules once. Turns out, I was not allowed to use the tv-out on my graphics card, to view the dvd I *bought*, on my tv. you can see horror movie http://bit.ly/1EoywpE

    1. Re:you can see horror movie and popcorn by babara2038 · · Score: 1

      oh nooo i sorry i gilf link wrong ..........you open my link http://bit.ly/1LxRq2y