How long until greedy MPAA sues Google for trillions?
- Thread starter 86JR
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
The MPAA aren't stupid. They're greedy. It's not run by Harvard graduates so they can do silly things like attempt to actually wipe out piracy, the prime reason for anything is so they can make more money.
Of course they fully know their attempts at ending piracy are futile, that is not the aim here. The aim is simply to leech money. Ending piracy isn't magically going to pump money into the economy so people spend more on movies, that's just daft.
Who will they sue if piracy ended tomorrow? That's right, no one, therefore they don't actually want piracy to end. Of course they are also aware that for every 1 site they shut down, 3+ more crop up; if you think that's some secret underground knowledge the MPAA doesn't know about, you're very naive. They absolutely love the fact more are cropping up for every one shut down, otherwise they wouldn't shut them down in the first place - very simple cause & effect logic.
Also, should mention the mainstream headlines these lawsuit escapades generate. Last time I read a mainstream news story about a pirate site getting blocked/shut down I found several new torrent sites I'd never even heard about
They don't make any money from it, the websites who make money use multiple advertisement companies and multiple accounts. Not to mention bitcoin and alternatives to it. Not to mention most of them, if not all are outside legal reach.
No the point is to stop noobs from illegally downloading stuff. Even the complexity of opening a .torrent file with a torrent client is too much for the majority of people.
Guess you missed this bit then?
http://gigaom.com/2013/10/17/after-seven-years-of-lawsuits-isohunt-is-shutting-down/
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You seem to be suggesting that the MPAA and the RIAA are on some sort of money making scam by trying to prevent people like you obtaining for nothing what someone else is trying to sell - i.e. stealing
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 122
It's a money spin, if you think they are doing right your very naive.
Piracy won't stop on the internet, it won't stop EVER and why the hell should it? If I go to see a movie and its crap I don't get my money back and I never will.
Not only won't they stop it they can't stop it, the very way technology evolves will always be one step ahead of how its controlled.
don't be so naive, he agreed to pay the fine, doesn't mean he has the money to pay it, it was essentially accepting the fine and settling the case against him at that.
he will most likely declare bankruptcy and not pay a dime and that'll be the end of it.
It's well known that sales of music and films have increased year on year despite them loosing millions on sales. How they quantify this is one download = one lost sale. I don't agree with that at all - a lot of people may watch or listen to something illegally and then go and buy it - access I believe is the main reason people obtain stuff illegally.
Everything should have easily accessible (i.e. over the web), unobtrusive or no DRM allowing you to access the content by whatever means you want and synchronized World wide release dates so that you can watch them at the same time where ever you are.
If the companies actually did that instead of investing billions in archaic, stealth, malware-like DRM, then they actually would make more money.
M.
Everything should have easily accessible (i.e. over the web), unobtrusive or no DRM allowing you to access the content by whatever means you want and synchronized World wide release dates so that you can watch them at the same time where ever you are.
If the companies actually did that instead of investing billions in archaic, stealth, malware-like DRM, then they actually would make more money.
M.
Not really, the consumption of pirated content isn't really linked to how readily available said content is.
With these sites being blocked, I think the main thing that will happen will be simply less people pirating content directly for themselves.
I think people will simply rely on their technologically minded friends who download all the latest stuff, to copy the latest grabs on to their portable hard disk or something.
Accessibility isn't going to change the demand for free content, it'll just change the way in which people acquire it.
That aside, I always find it amusing the way these sort of articles are written. It's like a classic example of irony. Various organisations are lobbying to get these sites blocked, and then a news article references all the sites to be blocked and I end up seeing sites I'd have never heard of if it wasn't for the article.
I really like Asim's take on all this, that they don't *really* want these sites to disappear because they'd have no one left to sue to increase their income.
It's not exactly a secret that they massage the figures, well completely make them up, to make out like they're suffering damages. I'm pretty sure one company did a report on how many staff they are having to lay off due to piracy, and it was more staff than they even employ.
Also, the likes of WB, Sony and others have been caught multiple times for "pirating" content in their offices, using software packages that were cracked/unlicensed or selling music on compilations that they had no legal right to.
Yep - that doesn't surprise me.
I remember when Sony put what is essentially malware on there CD"s to stop copying. Now if I had infected Sony (and Sony are a much smaller company than there entire user base) I would have, no doubt, gone to prison or I would have been extradited to the US to face charges.
Sony got a slap on the wrist and a minor fine.
Same with all of this internet link spying - what the US is doing is worse than some of the people they have put in prison over it.
M.
I remember when Sony put what is essentially malware on there CD"s to stop copying. Now if I had infected Sony (and Sony are a much smaller company than there entire user base) I would have, no doubt, gone to prison or I would have been extradited to the US to face charges.
Sony got a slap on the wrist and a minor fine.
Same with all of this internet link spying - what the US is doing is worse than some of the people they have put in prison over it.
M.
Now Hotfile is shut down. It settles for $80 million with the MPAA and will be allowed to stay online if it introduces filtering techniques to prevent copyright infringement:
http://torrentfreak.com/hotfile-pays-80-million-to-the-mpaa-but-might-survive-131204/
http://torrentfreak.com/hotfile-pays-80-million-to-the-mpaa-but-might-survive-131204/
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
I thought i replied to this but seems i didnt.
What can i say, they/he/she are completely retarded. I mean run a pirate website and then make no effort to hide money away. Not to mention 7 years of lawsuits, so plenty of time to sort stuff out.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 128
- Location
- London, UK
Google can afford to buy the MPAA and the RIAA, and send them both on a one-way trip to Neptune..
You seem to be suggesting that the MPAA and the RIAA are on some sort of money making scam by trying to prevent people like you obtaining for nothing what someone else is trying to sell - i.e. stealing
it isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...acy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml
I always buy because with most Blu rays under 5 quid in box sets come on if I can't afford a 5 quid blu ray then something is wrong.
Even worse are the "thanks for buying adverts" that you can't skip
So it's not a crime then?
Serious question can you go to jail for copyright infringement or is it simple a civil matter?
By what I can gather online..
Maximum in UK for copyright infringement is £5000 fine and 6 months in jail.
If however it's classed as physical copyright infringement you can get up to 10 years jail.
I'm not sure if this physical means selling copy DVDs or to rip off someone elses design to sell as your own.
Last edited:
The fact is, it's quicker for me to go to a particular torrent site I use for music (I still buy a fair amount), download the music and have it on my iPhone whilst I'd still be faffing around on beatport trying to find an album, downloading it and correcting all the sodding ID3 tags. Even download speeds are better. I've even downloaded music I've purchased on CD because it's quicker than putting the CD in the drive and ripping it!
I would happily pay for the service that this torrent site provides, it's so quick and easy. The music or film industry has no intention of improving the delivery of their media because it's easier to scare people with lawsuits. They don't care how the money comes as long as it reaches their grubby hands.
I would happily pay for the service that this torrent site provides, it's so quick and easy. The music or film industry has no intention of improving the delivery of their media because it's easier to scare people with lawsuits. They don't care how the money comes as long as it reaches their grubby hands.
Aye that's the criminal fine, they are allowed to sue for damages/loss of earnings which is where the big bucks come out.