• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hurt Locker copyright trolls at it again

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BladeVenom said:
If it weren't for piracy, the movie wouldn't have even gotten noticed by most people. Piracy benefited Hurt Locker.
Click to expand...

i doubt it. the more this news gets pushed the less people will buy this movie. it could easily become the most ripped off movie in history if they keep bitching about "peepwle ighweegawee steawing their cont ant".

i dont even know why people get scared. its not stealing. its copyright infringement. how they win any case over what the value of the products worth is is beyond me. and i think there is a reason the lawyers who lose these cases are not famous for any reason.

i also think there is a reason you dont hear of insane pirating cases on individuals anymore. because its not a crime in any sense. youre not stealing a physical album, you are acquiring an item that was made by someone OTHER then the creator which they did such a good job on that nobody can tell the difference.

but that is the difference. its not the creators item. he didnt make it, you just made yours look(or sound) like his. thats where copyright laws come into place. in the business world, it matters because your copy might make his originals sell for less. but in the private world, who the fuck cares? why should the creator care if you copy what he does for your own enjoyment? it doesnt effect him. like people making replicas of old muscle cars... i dont think it hurts gm that people try to copy their products.. and even -oh gosh- let other people drive them!
 
Last edited:
MaxPayne63 said:
You have to decide to buy a movie or album or what have you. If you think it's a bad value you have the option to simply not buy it.

For the biggest thieves around, look here.
Click to expand...

Yeah well while those guys and the corporations battle each other over who gets to keep the money they are squeezing us all from both ends. :\
 
Pr0d1gy said:
So what if my friend copies their movie they purchased legally and gives it to me? That is basically what everyone did in the 80' & beyond with music. By the definitions being discussed in here this would be stealing and a crime.
Click to expand...

If they give you the copy then it would be a illegal copy you have as you don't own the original dvd and are not supposed to keep / use it.

But there were campaigns back then saying it was stealing also so it's nothing new except they are doing more to track the people as it's easier now.

Also they charged extra for blank tapes of offset this last I looked as they knew what people were doing as a way to compensate however with copies being made for free now they can't do that.
 
Last edited:
Newbian said:
If they give you the copy then it would be a illegal copy you have as you don't own the original dvd and are not supposed to keep / use it.

But there were campaigns back then saying it was stealing also so it's nothing new except they are doing more to track the people as it's easier now.

Also they charged extra for blank tapes of offset this last I looked as they knew what people were doing as a way to compensate however with copies being made for free now they can't do that.
Click to expand...

So with each passing generation access is limited and crime is increased. Doesn't sound very civilized.
 
It's a stupid movie with so many unrealistic situations that it actually pissed me off. Even more so that it won awards. They should have paid me to watch it.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Yeah it's really sad they have been getting away with this for so long. The government likes it since they most likely get a cut, or someone at the RIAA gives extremely awesome blow jobs. Probably both. There's probably some mutant in the US government with two dicks. One for the RIAA and one for the MPAA. At the same time. That's an orgasm that always never says no to them for anything.
Click to expand...
I think the SOPA/PIPA battle was actually a turning point in the decline of the political pull of the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry does have a lot of power of course, but faced up against the tech industry, it's going to lose more often than not now. CA senators Boxer and Feinstein both supported SOPA/PIPA but I think they're going to be a lot more reluctant to support these kinds of bills in the future
 
I dont see the issue.

You are innocent untill proven guilty are you not?

So ask them to prove it was you, simple as that.

Unless you are the only resident at that adress they will be completly unable to prove it was you, you cant sue a IP address they need to prove it was a person, and which person.

And even if there is only one resident its not hard to spoof IP's im thinking it would be near impossible for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you.

So why is everyone so worked up about this?
 
When it comes to piracy for some reason it's one of the few exceptions, it's guilty until proven innocent. They treat it pretty much like terrorism. Once you are accused you're pretty much screwed. They don't have to prove anything. This is what makes these cases such BS.

Speaking of BS, there's another extradition going on. http://www.gofundme.com/1bo8vo

He was not even running a site that had any content on it, it was just links. WTF?
 
Rifter said:
I dont see the issue.

You are innocent untill proven guilty are you not?

So ask them to prove it was you, simple as that.

Unless you are the only resident at that adress they will be completly unable to prove it was you, you cant sue a IP address they need to prove it was a person, and which person.

And even if there is only one resident its not hard to spoof IP's im thinking it would be near impossible for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you.

So why is everyone so worked up about this?
Click to expand...

Smaller-scale copyright infringement is considered a civil matter, so the evidence required to establish guilt isn't as strict. An IP is a sufficient starting point.
 
Rifter said:
Thats shitty then. But do they still not need to prove who did it? you cant sue a IP.
Click to expand...

You can't sue an IP address, but an IP address is being leased by the person paying for the Internet connection. Assuming that the plaintiff's case is reasonably complete, the person leasing the connection will need to present their own case on why they shouldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement. Considering that the person will likely have received numerous warnings from their ISP before being sued, their ability to claim ignorance about the infringement will be very limited.
 
lxskllr said:
That's the biggest reason I didn't renew my Emusic account. The higher prices were disappointing, but not having unlimited downloads killed the deal. They courted the big players, and they lost a customer. Fuck 'em...
Click to expand...

Get a VUDU account (Walmart's streaming). You actually own it and their Ultraviolet HD is the next best thing since Blu-Ray (although not quite there yet).
 
Rifter said:
I dont see the issue.

You are innocent untill proven guilty are you not?

So ask them to prove it was you, simple as that.

Unless you are the only resident at that adress they will be completly unable to prove it was you, you cant sue a IP address they need to prove it was a person, and which person.

And even if there is only one resident its not hard to spoof IP's im thinking it would be near impossible for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you.

So why is everyone so worked up about this?
Click to expand...

the problem is the tactics they use.

because they sue based on IP alone. they know if they go to court the odds on winning are low.

So they send you a letter saying You used the IP. that IP downloaded such and such. IF you don't pay them $6k to settle they will sue.

now fighting the lawsuit is going to cost a HELL of a lot more then the $6k. EVEN though there is NO PROOF.

there has been a few lawsuits where they sued people that had NO clue about the music. such as a 80 yr old women who sopposedly downloaded a bunch of gangster rap.

when rolling IP's are your only proof you shouldn't be able to do shit.
 
Pr0d1gy said:
Yeah, my wife bought some stuff on Amazon and I found out about their one time download policy and shut that shit down immediately. No more bullshit scams. I can stream it all I want on Youtube for free but I bought it and can only get it once....wtf is that shit?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about amazon video? It's not what you think. It's a limit of 2 downloaded copies, not a limit of 2 downloads. You can download a movie or show you buy to your PC and a kindle fire, and then you won't be able to download it to a 3rd device, but if you go and delete it off your PC you can then go download it on to something new, for example.

It's not as perfect as free unlimited downloads with zero DRM, but does anyone offer that? I don't think so. Amazon's system seems pretty reasonable IMO.
 
SP33Demon said:
Get a VUDU account (Walmart's streaming). You actually own it and their Ultraviolet HD is the next best thing since Blu-Ray (although not quite there yet).
Click to expand...
The Emusic story was just something similar that I care about. I'm not much into video, and definitely wouldn't want a dedicated box to play movies. I don't even have a TV :^D
 
I own a substantial and expensive blu-ray and DVD collection, and I have an absurd number of games purchased on Steam. Yet, I also sometimes augment my collections of both in other ways.

There are public libraries where you can get free access to see many many movies and TV shows, never paying a dime.

You can borrow a DVD from your friends and family.

You can watch a movie on TV at a friend's house without ever paying for cable.

On my submarine movie piracy was near universal and massive. When you're underwater for months, it's not practical to haul around a bunch of discs. Having tons of stuff to watch on a hard drive works very well for that environment.

Music and movie industries have set themselves up for this problem being worse than it needed to be by charging absurd prices, and not adapting to a changing market and technology quickly enough.
 
techs said:
I really don't believe that.

However, one thing that I am sure is a myth is that prices would come down if there wasn't any piracy

That's just absolutely wrong and falls in the same category as people who say the price of sporting events would go down if athletes are paid less.

The makers of music, movies, etc are not going to lower prices just because there are more customers. That's insane. Its like saying the Yankees will lower ticket prices if their payroll is less. What idiot would intentionally make less money? You charge whatever amount the market will pay.

In fact, if piracy were eliminated movies, music, etc would cost more because the in effect the "supply" would be less.
Click to expand...
There are two competing effects to 'eliminating piracy'.

One is to remove the 'competition' provided by digital media being available for 'free'. This would restore the monopoly of content creators over their work, and should increase prices.

The other is to open up a class of consumers who would not purchase these works at current prices at all (and therefore give 100% of their 'business' to torrent sites). Market differentiation is key here; find a way to sell to this market as with minimal cannibalizing of your current 'premium' market.

Cheap rentals (digital or otherwise), aggressive pricing of DVD/SD editions, possibly ad-supported editions, etc might allow this. But if you want the HD/Bluray edition, you pay just like now.

I see this as the most likely outcome of an effective crackdown on piracy.
 
DrPizza said:
If true, then wouldn't that be an argument that it wasn't piracy? I mean, if I put a sign up in front of my house with "Eggs! Take a dozen!" and people take a dozen eggs, is that theft? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Not really. I think you're technically allowed to download here, you're just not allowed to upload.

So I can come take your eggs, but you're the only one allowed to give them away. If you catch me giving them away, then I'm screwed.
 
Seriously, it's like you playing movies in your yard on a large screen and letting anyone and everyone who happens to pass watch them. I'm almost certain that in their eyes, something like this is illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top