Friend just got slapped with a lawsuit from Time Warner

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: PoPPeR
Originally posted by: russianpower
Originally posted by: Siva
Wow, that really sucks. Its like $5 to rent a movie, isn't $4k kinda overkill?

exactly. I'm also very perplexed about why time warner charged such a high price for dl-ing a $10 movie.
walk into best buy. Steal a Britney Spears CD. Get caught. If first time, maybe get away with a slap on the wrist. Pay for CD, maybe a small fee. Mostly just embarassment.

Download same CD, get sued by Britney for $10k per crappy song


No, UPLOAD the same CD so millions of others can steal, then you get sued. It's one thing to steal one CD, completely another to allow millions of others to steal it.
 

knyghtbyte

Senior member
Oct 20, 2004
918
1
0
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
If people didnt pirate so much then costs in shops/online stores would be cheaper, not necessarily by a lot, but enough that most people would be able to afford what they wanted. It due to piracy that things got so inflated, thankfully mass competition has driven things down a little. Im not a goody goody two shoes, i just dont mind rewarding the people who create something that makes me happy. I like the Steam idea of online content delivery with PC games, i think its very good, it takes the publishers out of the equation, and hopefully once the ties with them are cut then the content will become cheaper, even if only by a third it will be good :)

While I agree with mostly what you said, CDs and albums were over priced in stores before Napster. And they were mostly filler material too. People started complaining a lot more when the alternatives made headlines because of Metallica's lawsuit against Napster.

Piracy has little to do with the price of CDs. And there is hardly mass competition. There's, wha, 4 major record labels? Each is a megacorp in itself. They compete the same way telephone companies compete. :p

i think i covered answers to some of this in my today post, but just to be a completist (and the fact im bored stiffless at work atm..lol) im gonna say it again...lol

CD's and albums were overpriced because pirating has existed since home tape-tape recording systems were around, before then i guess as well, but nowhere near so prolific. This is partly why the costs spiralled, at the time the manufacturerss/producers raised costs and in turn so did the shops. As for mass competition i didnt mean from the labels, i mean the shops, far more companies sell music now, from dedicated music stores (HMV, Virgin, etc) to supermarkets (Sainsburys, Tescos, Asda) and even various other places like petrol garages, stationary/newsagent shops etc, so this has helped to bring prices either down, or encourage more deals where you buy a few and get them cheaper.

and here endeth my post.

back to work........what work, its a friday, nobody calling......so bored we're all playing twister...hehe
 

sfgtwsac

Member
Nov 30, 2004
46
0
0
Wow. This thread is a fountain of odd and inconsistent legal theories. I'll try to hit some highlights:

1. Just erase? No!!!. Putting aside whether Time Warner has other evidence, the filing of a lawsuit essentially freezes the parties in time. Destroying or otherwise disposing of materials that a party knows is relevant is to a pending lawsuit is an absolute no-no.

2. Prosecutors and public defenders? No. In a civil suit, there is a plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), whereas in a criminal case it is state v. defendant or U.S. v. defendant. The law enforcement arms of the state and federal government (i.e., prosecutors and public defenders) have no part nor can a defendant ask for a public defender. However, as one post suggested a legal aid society can be an excellent source of legal help if the defendant can't afford a lawyer.

3. Internet downloading versus shoplifting? This presents an interesting problem. Internet downloading, could theoretically be prosecuted under state laws against theft (along the shoplifting lines), but you could also be prosecuted under federal laws because almost all transactions of this sort occur in interstate commerce (i.e., across state lines).

4. Civil causes of action? Although I haven't researched this issue, I recall that the various digital content protection laws enacted at the federal level are what really helps the Time Warner's to sue "distributors." As many have mentioned, its probably the subsequent redistributing of the movie through the kid's sharing program that got the attention of Time Warner and not the downloading. And here is where the burden of proof gets more complicated. Presumably Time Warner can prove that this kid's copy of the movie was downloadable for x number of days. A question at trial, that might tip the scales one way or the other, is whether or not the kid knew that he was allowing the movie to be redistributed. If he had no idea, then a judge or jury might look at the actual damages caused (i.e., it was downloaded a 100 times so you owe us 100xretail price of movie) versus other potential damages available under applicable statutes or through the punitive damages process. One thing to keep in mind is that the plaintiff's burden of proof in a civil matter is a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials. Thus, it takes less "proof" for the plaintiff to win its case.
 

Gulzakar

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,074
0
0
When CD's hit the 8-10 dollar range AND aren't mostly crappy songs, I'll start buying again.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: BigFatCow
How did he get the movie? I still cant see how they can charge 4k for one movie. That is ridiculous.

what? you think they'll only charge you $15.99 if they catch you? there has to be an incentive to buy it instead of pirating it. come on, use your brain.

as a screenwriter who has had my stuff pirated i fully support this.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
who thinks if his ISP had been time warner, he wouldn't be being sued by them?

wrong. like they care about losing a $40 a month customer when a $120 million dollar movie is on the line. fyi-- time warner also owns HBO, Comedy Central, and the Cartoon Network.
 

MaluMan

Member
Nov 23, 2002
183
0
0
Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Downloading and distributing unpaid copies of movies/music is illegal, and depending how you want to look at it, it's just plain wrong. It's no different than shoplifting which costs the rest of us millions.

It is different than shoplifting because shoplifting involves removal of a physical object from the posession of another entity (the store). They can no longer sell that item. Downloading movies and music leaves the original owner with everything, they just have less people to sell to because some of those people will already have a copy of the item.

That having been said, I don't support illegal music/movie downloads, although I do hope for change in the system (a la iTunes and similar things).

i think thats a good point, if there was a machine that i could take to the store that could reproduce anything in the store and i decide to "copy" a candy bar, and i walk out with the reproduced candy bar, did i steal from the store?

just a thought.
 

Blazin Trav

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
2,571
0
0
The idiot needs to learn how to turn sharing off, or download using something that does not require sharing.
 

Qwest

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
3,169
0
0
just got a letter from Paramount and Cablevision about me downloading Collateral. I literally shard it at 1k/sec overnight and then shut it off.
Peace torrents!
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Originally posted by: midwestfisherman
Originally posted by: Skoorb
RIAA/MPAA don't give a rat's ass right now over DLing.

Where did you get that information from?
they are smarter to stop uploaders/seeds... hence no downloaders. Get them at the source...
 

Falloutboy

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2003
5,916
0
76
Originally posted by: savage
So does anybody know of any programs for downloading that can't easily be monitored by the mega corporations?

newsgroups never heard anyone get touched for downloading of them
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The potential fine is either $250,000 or $500,000 per violation, this case sounds like possibly multiple violations to me. so forget about your wondering how they got to $4k.

Also, it's against the law to destroy evidence, or to help people break the law, like telling them to destroy evidence, not that some of you care what's legal, only what you can get away with.


 

knyghtbyte

Senior member
Oct 20, 2004
918
1
0
Originally posted by: MaluMan
Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Downloading and distributing unpaid copies of movies/music is illegal, and depending how you want to look at it, it's just plain wrong. It's no different than shoplifting which costs the rest of us millions.

It is different than shoplifting because shoplifting involves removal of a physical object from the posession of another entity (the store). They can no longer sell that item. Downloading movies and music leaves the original owner with everything, they just have less people to sell to because some of those people will already have a copy of the item.

That having been said, I don't support illegal music/movie downloads, although I do hope for change in the system (a la iTunes and similar things).

i think thats a good point, if there was a machine that i could take to the store that could reproduce anything in the store and i decide to "copy" a candy bar, and i walk out with the reproduced candy bar, did i steal from the store?

just a thought.

sorry, have to say it, thats a dumb example.....firstly you can make a candy bar if you want in your own home.....secondly the candy bar is a very inexpensive product to manufacture. A movie costs millions to make, lots of people on the payroll, each movie must make its cost back and then some, a candy bar company will generally always shift their products without a problem as you dont have thousands of people wandering into shops using a magic machine to copy the candy bar....some people might make their own cakes etc, but there will always be lazy people who prefer to just buy it, but the marketing and design and production is minimal in effect to the profits bought back by it.....

And for the person being quoted by the person i quoted first in this post (still with me there?.lol) It IS the same as shoplifting, as by your own words you state that with shop lifting the item is gone and the shop can no longer sell it to someone else, well, same thing, the person who downloaded the film in pirate form might otherwise have gone and bought it if pirating wasnt possible. so therefore you have prevented a shop from making a sale by gaining something that isnt yours rightfully. It might not have the physical form of a Disc, but the Disc isnt what you buy, you buy the right to watch/listen to the contents on it. The same that i could have bought Half Life 2 on a disc, but i wouldnt be buying the disc, i would be buying the right to the software on it.....and to prove that? i have Steam, i bought my HL2 as a Silver Package over steam, so i have no Disc, i just have downloaded software, however if i had pirated it, then i would be stealing from Valve as i have prevented them from making the sale to me that would have been.

Right, im pretty sure i've made sense...lol...now im off to bed :)