PDA

View Full Version : yipes - just got my first bittorrent warning! :scared:


controlfreak
Jun 30th, 2006, 09:59 AM
So I got this email this morning from my ISP, saying that a company called BayTSP, working on behalf of Paramount Pictures, had found evidence that a computer at my router's IP address had downloaded a certain Paramount film using the BitTorrent protocol.

This is absolutely true, in fact, over the past 2 years, my housemate and I have downloaded literally hundreds of gigabytes of films, music and software from various p2p networks (mostly BT). But this is the first time I've been caught with my hand in the cookie jar (although it's slightly ironic because I never actually completed the download of the film in question).

Anyway they did not threaten any legal action in the email, just warned me that I should desist from infringing Paramout's copyright. So for now I've stopped all my downloads while I decide what to do next:

-stop using BT altogether?
-change to a different ISP until I get another warning, and so on?
-keep downloading?
-keep downloading but strictly avoid all Paramount films?
-use a different p2p protocol? (I looked into Usenet a while back but it was too complicated)

I think I'll probably proceed with caution by avoiding all Paramount content; the thing is, if these companies are scanning the BT networks and getting the IPs of infringers, how long will it be before I get a similar email from Universal, or Columbia, or whoever else is a major player in the MPAA?

Or, for that matter, how long will it be before the police kick down my door and seize all the computers in the house? :paranoid: (This is my worst fear since it would take me a good while to destroy all the evidence on my systems. But I don't think that can happen without sufficient warnings.)

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:04 AM
umm, i vote stop stealing shit altogether... its a felony now, what you admit to doing, (maybe the laws will change but for the time being it is a felony) and just feel lucky you havent gotten sued and move on with your life. its not the end of the world if you cant watch stolen movies. :shrug: :bounce: :)

Erika_Angel
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:08 AM
I have to say I do "steal" music & movies, however practically everyone downloads music, and the only movies I download are foreign ones which I can't find on DVD anywhere near where I live. I wouldn't download big budget films at the movies and such, I'd rather have them on DVD anyway.

My suggestion, stop downloading those types of films.

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:08 AM
In fact you can keep downloading coz its not illegal.Its a long story but you must not have more than one copy of a movie/game/song ;)

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:09 AM
I wouldn't download big budget films at the movies and such, I'd rather have them on DVD anyway.


What about downloading the DVDs :p

Erika_Angel
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:14 AM
What about downloading the DVDs :p

That's what I mean ;) .... The big budget films that come out at the movies and then come out on DVD and the DVD high quality movies are put on the net ;)

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:18 AM
That's what I mean ;) .... The big budget films that come out at the movies and then come out on DVD and the DVD high quality movies are put on the net ;)
Ahhh now I understand :o :)
Right now I`m making this:
Download the DVD,put it in the DVD Box and print the cover and there is absolutly no difference from the DVD that is worth 15-20 euro :devil: And it cost me something like 0,75 euro :devil: Well,I need money for tennis and clubs :lol:

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:25 AM
In fact you can keep downloading coz its not illegal.Its a long story but you must not have more than one copy of a movie/game/song ;)
i dont know where you are talking about. but in the us, its completely illegal regardless how many copies you own. its still illegal if you were in the movies yourself.

jrm
Jun 30th, 2006, 11:10 AM
How about downloading current series from TV?

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 11:19 AM
How about downloading current series from TV?
ok, its really simple, in america at least... anything (yes anything) made after the 1920's that is not creative commons, is copyrighted and thus can not be downloaded legally without the written consent of the copyright holder.

its easy to spot something that is creative commons or copyright free because it will say so at the beginning if its a movie or song, or somewhere on the image if it is a picture.

the eff and other org.s would like to make it easier for things that have on unclaimed to go into public domain, but companies like disney who have old things (1920-1930s) that they would like to keep holding sole rights over have forced the length of time before something goes into public domain to be lengthened.

rebel_ffighter
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:05 PM
I try not to download movies,or I sometimes download 1 or 2 that I cannot find here

wipeout
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:45 PM
-stop using BT altogether?

It might be an idea. Other P2P programs are not any safer, I don't think.

-change to a different ISP until I get another warning, and so on?

Probably gives you a clean slate. I've seen this recommended but some people get sued without warning letters.

Obviously, if your IP address is dynamic and changes everytime you go online, then they can only link it to your ISP, it's your ISP which would have to tell them you're a repeat offender.

-keep downloading?

It's up to you. It's only a warning letter. If you keep going, you might get more warning letters then eventually forced into a financial settlement of maybe five thousand US dollars. Or you might get no warning letters at all and be forced into a financial settlement of the same money. Chances are you'd go for years before it happens again.

If you think what you get from piracy is worth that kind of money, then you might as well keep going.

-keep downloading but strictly avoid all Paramount films?

BayTSP may be working for more than one movie company, and could know it was you again if you stay with your ISP.

-use a different p2p protocol? (I looked into Usenet a while back but it was too complicated)

I've seen both newsgroups/usenet and private Bittorrent groups recommended but have no idea how safe they are.

Somethings I'd add as possibilities:

Getting a faster connection = less time visible online

Ask if a friend already has the file = risk is spread between you

Wait until anonymous P2P programs improve

I have no idea what you should do. At least it's only a warning. :)

wipeout
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:52 PM
How about downloading current series from TV?

I've only ever heard of movies and music getting members of the public in trouble. Never TV programmes, computer programs, books, etc.

I'm not sure why that is other than music and movie companies seem to like to prosecute people a lot more. Of course, many TV series are produced by companies which also produce movies and music.

But I've still never heard it happening. :scratch:

Erika_Angel
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:58 PM
They also usually target those who feed other P2P'ers correct? Like in Bittorrent, those who seed for other people.

controlfreak
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:59 PM
Right now I'm considering the theory that the "investigation companies" have a reasonably short list (e.g. a few hundred at any one time) of "hot items" which they monitor - e.g. the studios' latest big film releases. And that by avoiding these "hot items" it may be possible to stay under the radar. So I may yet continue to download such things as obscure, old or foreign movies, and movies that are not affiliated with any of the major studios. That's mainly what I prefer to watch anyway. If I want to download a current blockbuster I will probably look into an alternative protocol.

controlfreak
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:02 PM
I've only ever heard of movies and music getting members of the public in trouble. Never TV programmes, computer programs, books, etc.

I'm not sure why that is other than music and movie companies seem to like to prosecute people a lot more. Of course, many TV series are produced by companies which also produce movies and music.

But I've still never heard it happening. :scratch:

I've heard of people getting done for TV programmes.

And the bad news is that some of the series I've partially downloaded are co-produced by Paramount. I may never get to finish watching those series.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:02 PM
i have 2 questions...

why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

why do you think its a good idea to talk about it in PUBLIC message board?

Erika_Angel
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:11 PM
i have 2 questions...

why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

why do you think its a good idea to talk about it in PUBLIC message board?

Geez Jiggles, just chill.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:15 PM
Geez Jiggles, just chill.
:confused:
wow harsh, i just asked some simple questions. why you so testy? :o

controlfreak
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:20 PM
why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

I pay for it in moral guilt.

why do you think its a good idea to talk about it in PUBLIC message board?

To relieve my guilt by hearing the support of my fellow criminals.

Erika_Angel
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:22 PM
:confused:
wow harsh, i just asked some simple questions. why you so testy? :o

:lol: I wasn't trying to be harsh, or testy ... just .... silly :)

CondiLicious
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:31 PM
There's something you can download and install that stops them getting info from you, such as your IP. I used it when downloading a movie once and I could see every time they tried to track me and it was like every 10 seconds so I've not bothered downloading movies/music since. It's not worth the risk.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:31 PM
I pay for it in moral guilt.



To relieve my guilt by hearing the support of my fellow criminals.
:lol: :lol: :yeah: sounds good!!! just watch yourself. dont end up like the 12 year old girl that got sued for millions. :lol: :lol:

Ems__
Jun 30th, 2006, 01:41 PM
oh boo for the film industry, because of the internet now they only earn millions but in double digits. I dunno what to do if I were you.. just burn the movies from your friends, I guess...but don't buy them legally :p (Jk-to Paramount & Assholes inc. who may be tracking...tennis forums)

wipeout
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:05 PM
why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

I'd pay for it if they made it available in a sensible way at a reasonable price in the format I want with a simultaneous release internationally.

I use iTunes, for example.

However, I want it now and not in however many months or years it takes to appear on TV or DVD in the UK with the plot having been spoiled for me for months by accidentally reading something or other.

Not putting the consumer first is a major source of piracy. They've got it backwards. It's up to companies to do what we want and not us to be good little boys and girls and do what they want.

Martian Stacey
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:23 PM
I'd pay for it if they made it available in a sensible way at a reasonable price in the format I want with a simultaneous release internationally.

I use iTunes, for example.

However, I want it now and not in however many months or years it takes to appear on TV or DVD in the UK with the plot having been spoiled for me for months by accidentally reading something or other.

Not putting the consumer first is a major source of piracy. They've got it backwards. It's up to companies to do what we want and not us to be good little boys and girls and do what they want.
I agree 100%

I've never downloaded any movies, and only occassionally download music (i would purchase all the albums of my fav artists anyway, and usually only download to try new things and see what i like)

I do download some TV shows, but the reason for that is it can take many months after the series has been broadcast in the US for those shows to be finally shown on TV in Australia, depending on the series. And when they are eventually shown here, and then released on DVD i will go out and buy it and delete the files i've downloaded.

But if the TV shows were actually released here around the same time as they are in the US, i wouldn't even bother downloading :shrug:

Kirt12255
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Wow a whole thread I needed to appologise to with my agression the other night. Can nip it in the bud now then...appologies. :wavey: I had a valid point though damn it.

When I'm in a shitty mood as I was....3 bottles of alcahol then you need to drop the issue with me. It's best not to.:lol:

I certainly owe an appology to Jiggly-Puff...I disrespected you as a human so sorry!

Rocketta
Jun 30th, 2006, 02:37 PM
The Movie industry is run by dummies....why finally agree to sell movies for download then make them unable to put on DVD and charge the same price for the privilege to watch the movie on your computer. :retard:

Paldias
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Stop doing it.
You theif.

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:55 PM
i dont know where you are talking about. but in the us, its completely illegal regardless how many copies you own. its still illegal if you were in the movies yourself.
Well I`m not 100% sure but before 20 years the big companies in USA tries to sue people for downloading movies,games etc. but they failed coz they cant proove this is for sale and for making profit.There is something in the law (i have no idea what) but you dont broke the law if you have only one copy of the movie,games...But you cant have illegal software no matter how many copies.I cant explain it way but if you want to know you can ask some US lawyers.And this is on USA ;)

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 03:56 PM
i have 2 questions...

why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

why do you think its a good idea to talk about it in PUBLIC message board?
1. Coz I can
2. Why not :scratch:

MinnyGophers
Jun 30th, 2006, 04:27 PM
i have 2 questions...

why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?


I agree with that. The best option would be to stop. But since people won't, I say whatever happens, don't be too surprised if more people are starting to get caught and sued.
Internet pirating is becoming a big deal now because it costs them a chunk of their revenues. Do you think actors/studios are going to take a pay cut because people are "stealing" from them? If anything, the control over their copyrighted products will get more severe and more legal actions will be taken.
Also, people complain about the prices of DVDs and CDs, but they're only going to get pricier if they sell less.
Of course there are still people who buy the DVDs/CDs once they come out, but I would say a large majority don't, especially for music CDs.

Anyways, getting off my soap boax. :p

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Well I`m not 100% sure but before 20 years the big companies in USA tries to sue people for downloading movies,games etc. but they failed coz they cant proove this is for sale and for making profit.There is something in the law (i have no idea what) but you dont broke the law if you have only one copy of the movie,games...But you cant have illegal software no matter how many copies.I cant explain it way but if you want to know you can ask some US lawyers.And this is on USA ;)
yeah but 20 years ago was long before the DMCA. plus that was never true. they creator of the software ALWAYS held the copyright for a set number of years.

anyway, every year the the senate makes new rules that make it tougher for americans to have fair use.

check out the EFF they talk about all of this in more detail. but yes it is illegal to download or upload copies of ANYTHING that you dont own the copyright for and that doesnt directly give you permission to do so. and also nothing made after 1920s gives you direct permission to with it as you please, regardless how many copies you own.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 06:46 PM
The Movie industry is run by dummies....why finally agree to sell movies for download then make them unable to put on DVD and charge the same price for the privilege to watch the movie on your computer. :retard:
DMCA.

they dont trying shit in places that dont let me. but with the DMCA they can and they will.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 06:54 PM
I'd pay for it if they made it available in a sensible way at a reasonable price in the format I want with a simultaneous release internationally.

I use iTunes, for example.

However, I want it now and not in however many months or years it takes to appear on TV or DVD in the UK with the plot having been spoiled for me for months by accidentally reading something or other.

Not putting the consumer first is a major source of piracy. They've got it backwards. It's up to companies to do what we want and not us to be good little boys and girls and do what they want.

i dont know where you are. but in the us, the fact that its not available in a way that you like doesnt change copyright, or make it any less illegal. its ass and it should not be there way, but that i think its something that people need to consider, they download illegally all they want, but when it comes to knowing whats up and why things are this way, and they fail to contact the senators that are in bed with the RIAA and MPAA and vote those suckers out and it gets worse year after year. i think thats why i dont feel sorry for people who get sued. its like the only reason its illegal and these things arent available in more formats is because we let it become this way.

lol :lol: :lol: ok i am done soap boxing now.

Rocketta
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:19 PM
DMCA.

they dont trying shit in places that dont let me. but with the DMCA they can and they will.

huh? :confused:

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:22 PM
huh? :confused:
from wikipedia
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on May 14, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.
On May 22, 2001 the European Union passed the EU Copyright Directive or EUCD, similar in many ways to the DMCA.
Contents
[show]
[edit]
Provisions

[edit]
DMCA Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has two major portions, one of which includes works covered by several treaties in US copy prevention laws and gave the title its name and the other which is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analogue video recorders have copy prevention built in.
[edit]
DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access if they receive a notification from a copyright holder or their agent. It also includes a counter-notification which requires restoration of the material and a provision for subpoenas to identify alleged infringers.
[edit]
DMCA Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act
DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer.
[edit]
DMCA Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:
Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.
Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.
Added provisions to facilitate distance education.
Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping copies of sound recordings.
Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.
[edit]
DMCA Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add protection for boat hull designs.
As useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function, boat hull designs were formerly not protected under copyright law.
[edit]
Reform and opposition

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading one of these efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA).
A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.
Timothy B. Lee wrote:
The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates. [1]
[edit]
Example of DMCA

An author notes that a company or individual infringed his or her copyright in publishing material without receiving their permission first, paying a fee or crediting the source of the information (plagiarism). If the author cannot find an arrangement with the offender he can address a DMCA to the provider hosting the user website. This text contains several items to respond to. It can be sent by fax, ordinary postal mail or even put on a website at the disposal of the provider. Not all providers accept receipt of the DMCA as scanned and signed images by email. Here is the template of the DMCA request that the author has to fill in and send to the alleged infringer:
DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
1. Detailed identity of the copyrighted work that I believe has been infringed upon. This includes identification of the web page or specific posts, as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates in which they appear or the permalink of the post
>Include here the URL to the concerned material infringing your copyright (URL of a website or URL to a post, with title, date, name of the emitter), or link to initial post with sufficient data to find it back easily
2. Identity of the material that I claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above.
>Include here the name of the concerned litigeous material (all images or posts if relevant) with their complete reference
3. Location of the author copyright notice (for information).
>Include here the possible URL of the page in which you have list or give detail about your copyright. This information is optional as all work of the mind are by default protected by the Copyright Berne Convention
4. Information to permit our company, the provider, to contact you.
>Include here your email, fax or postal address to quickly get a feedback from the provider.
5. Statements
Reproduce the next statements:
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by my registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed.
Your signature
>Signature of the author
>Add your name here
In this context the DMCA doesn't require the complete postal address and private phone number of the author. Therefore, most companies don't list these two items in their policies (Google, Blogger) and only need an email of contact in respect with the spirit of the law.
Only a few companies require the author to mention his complete address and phone number (Go Daddy Software).
The postal address and phone number will only be required in cases of counter notification emitted by the offender or if the author initiates a legal proceeding.

Rocketta
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:26 PM
No, Jiggly I meant I didn't understand your actual sentence. :lol:

but thanks for the info. :D

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:28 PM
also from wiki (i know some you dont like wikipedia, thats why i suggested going to the EFF, which has the same info all be it in a more longwinded form.)

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998—alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act—extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published or registered for copyright until recently are addressed in a special section (17 U.S.C. § 303) and may remain protected until 2047. The act became Public Law 105-298 on October 27, 1998.
Contents
[show]
[edit]
Background

Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the signatory states are required to provide copyright protection for a minimum term of the life of the author plus fifty years, but they are permitted to provide for a longer term of protection. Following the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, member states of the European Union implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years. The United States did not become a Berne signatory until 1988, but had previously provided for the minimum copyright term the convention required in the Copyright Act of 1976.
Prior to the 1976 copyright act, many copyrighted literary works, movies and fictional characters were soon to pass into the public domain due to their 56 year maximum copyright terms. Some of these copyrighted items remained quite profitable for their copyright owners, including several characters owned by the Walt Disney Company. With the passage of the 1976 copyright act, early animated short films featuring Mickey Mouse such as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy would not enter the public domain until 2000 at the earliest due to their new 75 year copyright terms. Mickey Mouse and other characters also have protection as trade marks. In several countries (e.g. in Russia, where the Berne convention was not applied retroactively) Mickey Mouse and all other copyrighted works created before 1970 are now in the public domain.
After the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in Europe. The act was named after the late Congressman Sonny Bono (who was killed in a ski accident more than nine months before the act became law), who had favored this position as a songwriter and filmmaker even prior to his entry into politics.
Both houses of the United States Congress passed the act as Public Law 105-298 with a voice vote, making it impossible to determine who voted for or against. President Bill Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 on October 21, 1998.
As a consequence of the act, under current law, no copyrighted works will enter into the public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019 at the earliest, when the copyright on works created in 1923 expires.
[edit]
Political climate

In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever," but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) then-president Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day."
[edit]
Senate Report 104-315
The Senate Report 104-315 gave the official reasons for passing copyright extension laws and was originally written in the context of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, S. 483.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain.
The authors of the report believed that extending copyright protection would help the United States by providing more protection for their works in foreign countries and by giving more incentive to digitize and preserve works since there was an exclusive right in them. The report also included minority opinions by Herb Kohl and Hank Brown, who believed that the term extensions were a financial windfall to current owners of copyrighted material at the expense of the public's use of the material.
[edit]
Support
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790, that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry, and that some works would be created under perpetual copyright that would never be created under time-limited copyright. They also claim that Congress has the power to pass whatever copyright term it wants because the language "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the United States Constitution is not a substantive limitation on the powers of Congress, leaving the sole restriction that copyrights must only last for "limited times." However, in what respect the granted time must be limited has never been determined, thus arguably even an absurdly long, yet finite, duration would still be a valid limited time according to the letter of the Constitution as long as Congress was ostensibly setting this limit to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This was one of the arguments that prevailed in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA.
[edit]
Opposition
Opponents of the Bono Act consider the legislation to be little more than corporate welfare and have tried (but failed thus far) to challenge its constitutionality, claiming that such an act is not "necessary and proper" to accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". They argue that most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful anyway, such as Disney. They also point out that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers that Congress can gain from a treaty. More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a "slippery slope" toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the "for limited times" language of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8. They question the proponents' life expectancy argument, pointing out that the copyright terms under the 1790 act lasted only twenty-eight years total, that life expectancies have not risen threefold since 1790 (ignoring infant mortality, they have increased barely ten years), and that even though terms of patents have not been extended in parallel, patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere twenty-year term.
It has been said that extending copyright terms to "harmonize" with those elsewhere can involve a "leapfrogging" effect: two sides repeatedly extend their copyright terms to try and keep up with each other.
Another argument is an "offshore production" argument: that, for example, derivative works could be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would have expired, such works advancing science or the useful arts, and that US law would prohibit these works to US residents. A movie of Mickey Mouse playing with a computer (à la Sorcerer's Apprentice) could be legally created in Russia and children worldwide could gain immeasurably from watching it, but the movie would be refused admission for importation by US Customs because of copyright, resulting in a deprivation to American children.
Opponents also question the proponents' "new works would not be created" argument by pointing out proponents' hidden presumption that the goal is to make the creation of new works possible, whereas the authors of the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary and explicitly restricted the goal to merely "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". In fact, some works created under time-limited copyright would not be created under perpetual copyright because the creator of a distantly derivative work does not have the money and resources to find the owner of copyright in the original work and purchase a license, or the individual or privately held owner of copyright in the original work might refuse to license a use at any price (though a refusal to license may trigger a fair use safety valve). One can thus argue that a rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation.
For example, the works of English playwright and poet William Shakespeare and the Greek myths have been the basis for much of Neil Gaiman's writing, which might well not have been created if they were still under copyright. Recent works that have entered the popular culture, and for which copyright is arguably not appropriate, include the novels that created Frankenstein and Dracula, both originating in the 19th century. Most of the holy writings of major religions are also in the public domain, which allows them to be adapted, translated, paraphrased and otherwise made suitable to modern audiences. If the Roman Catholic Church had a perpetual copyright on the letters of the Apostle Paul, the four Gospels, the Book of Revelation and the letters of James, Peter, John, Jude and the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrew, it could have refused to license them for translation, or for use by other churches. Many of Disney's most famous feature movies have themselves been derivatives of public domain works; for example, its film The Jungle Book was created only seven years after the copyright on the book expired.
On November 2, 2005, the United States Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, stated in a symposium on intellectual property at the University of North Carolina law school that, "We've certainly lengthened the term [of copyright] perhaps -- I won't even say perhaps -- too long a term. I think it is too long. I think that was probably a big mistake, but one that Congress can make."
[edit]
Challenges

Publishers and librarians, among others, brought Eldred v. Ashcroft to obtain an injunction on enforcement of the act. Oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 9, 2002, and on January 15, 2003 the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision. The plaintiffs in the Eldred case have as of 2003 begun to shift their effort toward the U.S. Congress in support of a bill called the Public Domain Enhancement Act that would make the provisions of the Bono Act apply only to copyrights that had been registered with the Library of Congress.
Other activist groups practice civil disobedience by violating the act in public. However, these challenges have so far met with little success.

Wigglytuff
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:30 PM
No, Jiggly I meant I didn't understand your actual sentence. :lol:

but thanks for the info. :D
LOL, sorry, i meant that because of the DMCA they can do it. and it sucks ass.

Rocketta
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:38 PM
LOL, sorry, i meant that because of the DMCA they can do it. and it sucks ass.

Ah, I agree! :lol:

Kenny
Jun 30th, 2006, 07:56 PM
Are you using any programs to block bad ips? By bad ips I mean that which are known government, educational, movie studio, etc. kind of ips.

Louis Cyphre
Jun 30th, 2006, 10:41 PM
from wikipedia
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on May 14, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.
On May 22, 2001 the European Union passed the EU Copyright Directive or EUCD, similar in many ways to the DMCA.
Contents
[show]
[edit]
Provisions

[edit]
DMCA Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has two major portions, one of which includes works covered by several treaties in US copy prevention laws and gave the title its name and the other which is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analogue video recorders have copy prevention built in.
[edit]
DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access if they receive a notification from a copyright holder or their agent. It also includes a counter-notification which requires restoration of the material and a provision for subpoenas to identify alleged infringers.
[edit]
DMCA Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act
DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer.
[edit]
DMCA Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:
Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.
Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.
Added provisions to facilitate distance education.
Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping copies of sound recordings.
Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.
[edit]
DMCA Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add protection for boat hull designs.
As useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function, boat hull designs were formerly not protected under copyright law.
[edit]
Reform and opposition

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading one of these efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA).
A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.
Timothy B. Lee wrote:
The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates. [1]
[edit]
Example of DMCA

An author notes that a company or individual infringed his or her copyright in publishing material without receiving their permission first, paying a fee or crediting the source of the information (plagiarism). If the author cannot find an arrangement with the offender he can address a DMCA to the provider hosting the user website. This text contains several items to respond to. It can be sent by fax, ordinary postal mail or even put on a website at the disposal of the provider. Not all providers accept receipt of the DMCA as scanned and signed images by email. Here is the template of the DMCA request that the author has to fill in and send to the alleged infringer:
DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
1. Detailed identity of the copyrighted work that I believe has been infringed upon. This includes identification of the web page or specific posts, as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates in which they appear or the permalink of the post
>Include here the URL to the concerned material infringing your copyright (URL of a website or URL to a post, with title, date, name of the emitter), or link to initial post with sufficient data to find it back easily
2. Identity of the material that I claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above.
>Include here the name of the concerned litigeous material (all images or posts if relevant) with their complete reference
3. Location of the author copyright notice (for information).
>Include here the possible URL of the page in which you have list or give detail about your copyright. This information is optional as all work of the mind are by default protected by the Copyright Berne Convention
4. Information to permit our company, the provider, to contact you.
>Include here your email, fax or postal address to quickly get a feedback from the provider.
5. Statements
Reproduce the next statements:
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by my registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed.
Your signature
>Signature of the author
>Add your name here
In this context the DMCA doesn't require the complete postal address and private phone number of the author. Therefore, most companies don't list these two items in their policies (Google, Blogger) and only need an email of contact in respect with the spirit of the law.
Only a few companies require the author to mention his complete address and phone number (Go Daddy Software).
The postal address and phone number will only be required in cases of counter notification emitted by the offender or if the author initiates a legal proceeding.

also from wiki (i know some you dont like wikipedia, thats why i suggested going to the EFF, which has the same info all be it in a more longwinded form.)

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998—alternatively known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act—extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published or registered for copyright until recently are addressed in a special section (17 U.S.C. § 303) and may remain protected until 2047. The act became Public Law 105-298 on October 27, 1998.
Contents
[show]
[edit]
Background

Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the signatory states are required to provide copyright protection for a minimum term of the life of the author plus fifty years, but they are permitted to provide for a longer term of protection. Following the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, member states of the European Union implemented protection for a term of the author's life plus seventy years. The United States did not become a Berne signatory until 1988, but had previously provided for the minimum copyright term the convention required in the Copyright Act of 1976.
Prior to the 1976 copyright act, many copyrighted literary works, movies and fictional characters were soon to pass into the public domain due to their 56 year maximum copyright terms. Some of these copyrighted items remained quite profitable for their copyright owners, including several characters owned by the Walt Disney Company. With the passage of the 1976 copyright act, early animated short films featuring Mickey Mouse such as Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy would not enter the public domain until 2000 at the earliest due to their new 75 year copyright terms. Mickey Mouse and other characters also have protection as trade marks. In several countries (e.g. in Russia, where the Berne convention was not applied retroactively) Mickey Mouse and all other copyrighted works created before 1970 are now in the public domain.
After the United States' accession to the Berne convention, a number of copyright owners successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for another extension of the term of copyright, to provide for the same term of protection that exists in Europe. The act was named after the late Congressman Sonny Bono (who was killed in a ski accident more than nine months before the act became law), who had favored this position as a songwriter and filmmaker even prior to his entry into politics.
Both houses of the United States Congress passed the act as Public Law 105-298 with a voice vote, making it impossible to determine who voted for or against. President Bill Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 on October 21, 1998.
As a consequence of the act, under current law, no copyrighted works will enter into the public domain in the United States until January 1, 2019 at the earliest, when the copyright on works created in 1923 expires.
[edit]
Political climate

In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever," but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) then-president Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day."
[edit]
Senate Report 104-315
The Senate Report 104-315 gave the official reasons for passing copyright extension laws and was originally written in the context of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995, S. 483.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain.
The authors of the report believed that extending copyright protection would help the United States by providing more protection for their works in foreign countries and by giving more incentive to digitize and preserve works since there was an exclusive right in them. The report also included minority opinions by Herb Kohl and Hank Brown, who believed that the term extensions were a financial windfall to current owners of copyrighted material at the expense of the public's use of the material.
[edit]
Support
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790, that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry, and that some works would be created under perpetual copyright that would never be created under time-limited copyright. They also claim that Congress has the power to pass whatever copyright term it wants because the language "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the United States Constitution is not a substantive limitation on the powers of Congress, leaving the sole restriction that copyrights must only last for "limited times." However, in what respect the granted time must be limited has never been determined, thus arguably even an absurdly long, yet finite, duration would still be a valid limited time according to the letter of the Constitution as long as Congress was ostensibly setting this limit to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This was one of the arguments that prevailed in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the CTEA.
[edit]
Opposition
Opponents of the Bono Act consider the legislation to be little more than corporate welfare and have tried (but failed thus far) to challenge its constitutionality, claiming that such an act is not "necessary and proper" to accomplishing the Constitution's stated purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". They argue that most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful anyway, such as Disney. They also point out that the Tenth Amendment limits the powers that Congress can gain from a treaty. More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a "slippery slope" toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the "for limited times" language of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8. They question the proponents' life expectancy argument, pointing out that the copyright terms under the 1790 act lasted only twenty-eight years total, that life expectancies have not risen threefold since 1790 (ignoring infant mortality, they have increased barely ten years), and that even though terms of patents have not been extended in parallel, patents adequately reward investment in the field with their mere twenty-year term.
It has been said that extending copyright terms to "harmonize" with those elsewhere can involve a "leapfrogging" effect: two sides repeatedly extend their copyright terms to try and keep up with each other.
Another argument is an "offshore production" argument: that, for example, derivative works could be created outside the United States in areas where copyright would have expired, such works advancing science or the useful arts, and that US law would prohibit these works to US residents. A movie of Mickey Mouse playing with a computer (à la Sorcerer's Apprentice) could be legally created in Russia and children worldwide could gain immeasurably from watching it, but the movie would be refused admission for importation by US Customs because of copyright, resulting in a deprivation to American children.
Opponents also question the proponents' "new works would not be created" argument by pointing out proponents' hidden presumption that the goal is to make the creation of new works possible, whereas the authors of the United States Constitution evidently thought that unnecessary and explicitly restricted the goal to merely "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". In fact, some works created under time-limited copyright would not be created under perpetual copyright because the creator of a distantly derivative work does not have the money and resources to find the owner of copyright in the original work and purchase a license, or the individual or privately held owner of copyright in the original work might refuse to license a use at any price (though a refusal to license may trigger a fair use safety valve). One can thus argue that a rich, continually replenished, public domain is necessary for continued artistic creation.
For example, the works of English playwright and poet William Shakespeare and the Greek myths have been the basis for much of Neil Gaiman's writing, which might well not have been created if they were still under copyright. Recent works that have entered the popular culture, and for which copyright is arguably not appropriate, include the novels that created Frankenstein and Dracula, both originating in the 19th century. Most of the holy writings of major religions are also in the public domain, which allows them to be adapted, translated, paraphrased and otherwise made suitable to modern audiences. If the Roman Catholic Church had a perpetual copyright on the letters of the Apostle Paul, the four Gospels, the Book of Revelation and the letters of James, Peter, John, Jude and the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrew, it could have refused to license them for translation, or for use by other churches. Many of Disney's most famous feature movies have themselves been derivatives of public domain works; for example, its film The Jungle Book was created only seven years after the copyright on the book expired.
On November 2, 2005, the United States Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, stated in a symposium on intellectual property at the University of North Carolina law school that, "We've certainly lengthened the term [of copyright] perhaps -- I won't even say perhaps -- too long a term. I think it is too long. I think that was probably a big mistake, but one that Congress can make."
[edit]
Challenges

Publishers and librarians, among others, brought Eldred v. Ashcroft to obtain an injunction on enforcement of the act. Oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 9, 2002, and on January 15, 2003 the court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision. The plaintiffs in the Eldred case have as of 2003 begun to shift their effort toward the U.S. Congress in support of a bill called the Public Domain Enhancement Act that would make the provisions of the Bono Act apply only to copyrights that had been registered with the Library of Congress.
Other activist groups practice civil disobedience by violating the act in public. However, these challenges have so far met with little success.

Instead of reading this I download 12 Disney movies for my sister :devil: For free :lol:
As I said I didnt read this but Jigglypuff do you know or hear about someone that is convicted about movie,game ot a mp3? I mean in USA.Coz I`m almost sure about that thing that I told you before but there is as I said i`m not 100% sure

Viktymise
Jun 30th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Is limewire illeagle

Wigglytuff
Jul 1st, 2006, 12:10 AM
Instead of reading this I download 12 Disney movies for my sister :devil: For free :lol:
As I said I didnt read this but Jigglypuff do you know or hear about someone that is convicted about movie,game ot a mp3? I mean in USA.Coz I`m almost sure about that thing that I told you before but there is as I said i`m not 100% sure
if you had read you might able to ask better questions. because in the context of how the laws are interpreted your questions is hard to understand.

anyway going to the eff site will tell you want to know.

Louis Cyphre
Jul 1st, 2006, 10:18 AM
if you had read you might able to ask better questions. because in the context of how the laws are interpreted your questions is hard to understand.

anyway going to the eff site will tell you want to know.
Ok
You read,I download
You continue to read,I watch
You still read,everybody watch

Enjoy your reading :wavey:

Jeff
Jul 1st, 2006, 10:31 AM
This thread is quite hilarious I have to say

Viktymise
Jul 1st, 2006, 11:41 AM
Depends what you use it for...
For what uses is it illegal

Wigglytuff
Jul 1st, 2006, 02:06 PM
For what uses is it illegal
stealing

Wigglytuff
Jul 1st, 2006, 02:10 PM
Ok
You read,I download
You continue to read,I watch
You still read,everybody watch

Enjoy your reading :wavey:
:smash: :haha:

Louis Cyphre
Jul 1st, 2006, 06:04 PM
:smash: :haha:
are you trying to say something with that jigglidiot?

Infiniti2001
Jul 1st, 2006, 08:16 PM
I personally upload more than I download, and I pay extra for uploading. So many times I get popups from Azureus asking for donations and making me aware of how much how much I've uploaded :lol:

Wigglytuff
Jul 1st, 2006, 09:09 PM
are you trying to say something with that jigglidiot?

nothing that you would understand (or be able to read). so dont worry your little head about it. :) :kiss:
:haha: :smash: :haha:

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2006, 01:35 AM
i have 2 questions...

why do you feel entitled to download other peoples work without paying for it?

why do you think its a good idea to talk about it in PUBLIC message board?

I was just reading a story about allofmp3.com and remembered you said you used it. :)

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2006, 01:38 AM
By the way, they can only sue you if they know who you are, and your ISP would have to tell them that. You should basically ask your ISP if they are willing to divulge that information, and tell them you'll take your business elsewhere if they would. Then its up to them.

Sorry I'm a bit late. :)

Wigglytuff
Jul 5th, 2006, 05:08 AM
I was just reading a story about allofmp3.com and remembered you said you used it. :)
they are not a p2p service... not even close.

gentenaire
Jul 5th, 2006, 06:10 AM
I was just reading a story about allofmp3.com and remembered you said you used it. :)

On that site, you pay for what you download.

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2006, 02:28 PM
they are not a p2p service... not even close.

Er, yes, its very close. You are downloading stuff while deliberately and knowingly avoiding paying the owners. You are just paying a nominal amount to the people who steal for you. Its no different. :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Jul 5th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Er, yes, its very close. You are downloading stuff while deliberately and knowingly avoiding paying the owners. You are just paying a nominal amount to the people who steal for you. Its no different. :rolleyes:
lol

i would say you should google p2p services and find out it works because you dont know. :lol:

as for the legality of all of mp3 i think you are not so good on that one either, so may want to google that as well. when you figure out what it is you are talking about let us know.

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2006, 03:24 PM
lol

i would say you should google p2p services and find out it works because you dont know. :lol:

as for the legality of all of mp3 i think you are not so good on that one either, so may want to google that as well. when you figure out what it is you are talking about let us know.

I never said alofmp3 was p2p. :retard: You were talking about downloading stuff without paying for it, and so am I. There is no practical or moral difference from that point of view. :)

The article I mentioned before was specifically about the legality of allofmp3, so no need to question my ignorance there, either.

Wigglytuff
Jul 5th, 2006, 04:02 PM
I never said alofmp3 was p2p. :retard: You were talking about downloading stuff without paying for it, and so am I. There is no practical or moral difference from that point of view. :)

The article I mentioned before was specifically about the legality of allofmp3, so no need to question my ignorance there, either.
lol, really.
Er, yes, its very close.
:lol: :lol:

and retard, you DO PAY for all of mp3 :smash: as someone has already pointed out.

SelesFan70
Jul 5th, 2006, 04:04 PM
umm, i vote stop stealing shit altogether... its a felony now, what you admit to doing, (maybe the laws will change but for the time being it is a felony) and just feel lucky you havent gotten sued and move on with your life. its not the end of the world if you cant watch stolen movies. :shrug: :bounce: :)

Winning post of the day!

Just go BUY the shit!

harloo
Jul 5th, 2006, 04:16 PM
I would say go with usergroups. This is the easiest way to download big releases without being tracked. They have more variety of movies, music etc and the download times are faster than bittorent. Did you have peerguardian up and running before you were sent the letter? :D ;)

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2006, 04:48 PM
lol, really.

:lol: :lol:

and retard, you DO PAY for all of mp3 :smash: as someone has already pointed out.

The copyright owners don't get paid, which is precisely why they want it closed down. If controlfreak sends isohunt £5, would that make it OK with you? :lol: You can buy pirated CDs in Brick Lane - is that OK with you? :lol:

:retard: