! PSA: Watch your torrenting !

Status
Not open for further replies.
naisho said:
No, because we're on a deaf site and my main intention on creating this topic was regarding torrenting that the deaf people do. Deaf people don't torrent music (on a frequent basis) now do they? Hello! Earth to you, pay attention..

That's weak man, don't be grasping for straws in here.

Find your "everyone's doing it" conclusion in another case NOT related to music and I'll consider. Until then you've nothing so far other than your usual rants.
Click to expand...

:laugh2:
 
Jiro said:
Because of Grokster Case.... as of June 2005 -

source


unfortunately... many people do not have $$$ for legal funds so they were muscled into false confession and $1,500 settlement. Dozens of cases were dropped by RIAA/MPAA when people refused to settle and wanted to proceed with case at court.

Theft? yep. RIAA/MPAA are stealing your money.
Click to expand...

Looks like one straight up for the other side. RIAA and MPAA did not win anything in that case and were hassling for money outside of court. Weak, shows how much they care for getting the law straight.
 
souggy said:
:laugh2:
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean seriously. Major lack in common sense. Somehow he thought my topic covered music torrenting, that's the last thing I'd even think of prior to posting this. I don't even own an ipod.
 
souggy said:
Thinking about those who still have environmental sounds available to them, but unable to listen to words. They still listen to music, and some do pirate.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are, bass listeners and all that but get real a bit. Although music is a part of piracy, I'm not doubting that - you as I or anyone else with half a brain knows what I meant originally when I posted this topic. It's regarding apps / software / movies / videos.

Music was the least of my concerns for making this topic, contrary to what kokonut thinks.
 
naisho said:
As usual, I notice kokonut yet again failed to address those points you brought in. Either avoiding or doesn't have an answer.

Nothing new to see I guess. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I know right? I just lol'ed at this comment "...deserve to be paid for their work". That person better look at RIAA/MPAA's treatment toward artists first!

I mean.... good grief - do ya'all know how much % of royalties that artists get??? They make more at concerts than from selling CD albums thru RIAA. I feel sorry for movie producers/writers, game programmers, etc. they all got ripped off.
 
Sorry.....but none of this changes the fact that violating copyright laws is illegal
 
TXgolfer said:
Sorry.....but none of this changes the fact that violating copyright laws is illegal
Click to expand...

it actually does. the legal cases I posted were extremely specific about it. it also pointed out a very specific hypocrisy and corruption on other side as well. :wave:
 
TXgolfer said:
Sorry.....but none of this changes the fact that violating copyright laws is illegal
Click to expand...

Kokonut wanted to bring in a point saying "everyone else is doing it". At first I thought he was NOT speaking of music piracy so I told him to show proof. No one gives that kind of a statement for software / movie piracy. Not any cases (non-music) that I've read of. If he can find a case not relating to music with the same mindset for the defense, I will amend my statements. Until the time being, the case still remains.

Music is something completely in its own league.
That was the prime of napster p2p.

Yes it is piracy and it is illegal, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion I'm talking about, which is PIRACY of things NOT music related; which is why this topic was posted, I thought I wouldn't need to explain because we all have somewhat a mutual agreement that music isn't the top of our priorities.

Plus, as shown in previous posts showing why the RIAA cases are its own league - the whole deal with them considering what is "right" and "wrong" and actually making money off the consumers while not caring for the artists nor law at all.
 
the main argument by RIAA/MPAA is that they were losing millions if not billions of dollars to "piracy" via p2p software.

question:
1. where and how did they get the figure?
2. how are they losing millions if iTunes is raking in millions?
3. Radiohead's "pay-what-you-want" scheme was a success so how is RIAA losing $$$?
4. the Supreme Court ruling stated that p2p is legal and the p2p companies cannot be sued unless they encourage copyright infringement
 
Jiro said:
it actually does. the legal cases I posted were extremely specific about it. it also pointed out a very specific hypocrisy and corruption on other side as well. :wave:
Click to expand...



Again....still doesn't change the facts.....no emotion in the law.

Alot of what you posted was about devices
 
Jiro said:
the main argument by RIAA/MPAA is that they were losing millions if not billions of dollars to "piracy" via p2p software.

question:
1. where and how did they get the figure?
2. how are they losing millions if iTunes is raking in millions?
3. Radiohead's "pay-what-you-want" scheme was a success so how is RIAA losing $$$?
4. the Supreme Court ruling stated that p2p is legal and the p2p companies cannot be sued unless they encourage copyright infringement
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if they lose money or not really. Still illegal.

No one is saying p2p is illegal......but using p2p to share files when it's forbidden....that is illegal No reason to muddy the issue
 
TXgolfer said:
Doesn't matter if they lose money or not really. Still illegal.

No one is saying p2p is illegal......but using p2p to share files when it's forbidden....that is illegal No reason to muddy the issue
Click to expand...

again - Supreme Court ruling was pretty specific regarding usage and intent of p2p. MPAA/RIAA muddied it.
 
naisho said:
No, because we're on a deaf site and my main intention on creating this topic was regarding torrenting that the deaf people do. Deaf people don't torrent music (on a frequent basis) now do they? Hello! Earth to you, pay attention..

That's weak man, don't be grasping for straws in here.

Find your "everyone's doing it" conclusion in another case NOT related to music and I'll consider. Until then you've nothing so far other than your usual rants.
Click to expand...

Deaf people? Meaning a population from those with mild to profound hearing loss? I have a different look whenever people say the word "deaf." Using my view, we're talking about 33+ million people with hearing loss in the U.S. and that makes up 10% of the total U.S. population that are made up of deaf people who could be described as "HH." That's a lot of potential number of deaf/hh people who are likely already frequent music torrenting "customers." Certainly the number could likely be a lot more than those in the Deaf community circle you're probably thinking of. Maybe re-adjust your thinking?? Hello, McFly!

No grasping of straws. I just see things differently than you do.

As for the "everyone is doing it" I just proved it already in a downloading case that a lawyer actually used that line of defense.

Nite. Sweet dreams.
:wave:
 
I'm talking about alldeaf (aka, the deaf site). I'm sorry you can't read intuitively or have trouble comprehending the discussion.

Thanks for your opinion, maybe next time you might have something better to contribute.
Have a good day. :sadwave:
 
From your article


On November 7, 2005 Grokster announced that it would no longer offer its peer-to-peer file sharing service. The notice on their website said, "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners."
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem muddy to me here....The company even admits it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top