MPAA says No proof needed

[pzaur]

Just because they think you could have done something illegal you should owe.

Wired article

-pat

 

[jamie2112]

Wow, we are really entering the twilight zone.I guess the movie and music industry have been getting super fat on all us consumers for years and now they get some of their own medicine and they have a cow. Is it going to be illegal to play a song loud enough for ANYONE to hear. Because its ok for you to listen to a record that you payed for but if your friends listen to it with you, you and they are breaking the law by mpaa's standard. How pathetic is that. I am soooo sick of all this debate over who's right and wrong when it comes to music sharing. I will say that sites like FILMHILL and MOVIESISTER are breaking the law by posting movies that are still in theaters. Why isn't the mpaa going after people downloading movies off of those types of sites. I don't get it. GREED is a deadly sin......

 

[mtrycrafts]

Just because they think you could have done something illegal you should owe.

Wired article

-pat

Of course the MPAA lawyers will say that they don't need proof What else would they say, that they are in the wrong, so sorry?

 

[Jack Hammer]

The only thing I read that made sense on their part is when they said the only reason to put something in a share file is for the purpose of sharing it. Unfortunately for them, AFAIK that doesn't break any laws. Now what they need to do is lobby to get that made illegal or have it specifically mentioned as a rider to an existing law. Then they might have a leg to stand on.

Jack

 

[pzaur]

The only thing I read that made sense on their part is when they said the only reason to put something in a share file is for the purpose of sharing it. Unfortunately for them, AFAIK that doesn't break any laws. Now what they need to do is lobby to get that made illegal or have it specifically mentioned as a rider to an existing law. Then they might have a leg to stand on.

Jack

The biggest blow to this view is that there are probably a lot of people who don't realize that they have a share file. How many people actually read the EULA agreement, setup directions, and follow what is being installed?

I agree totally with mtrycrafts that they don't want to admit wrong behavior and are looking for a way to make their wrong a right.

-pat

 

[mtrycrafts]

The only thing I read that made sense on their part is when they said the only reason to put something in a share file is for the purpose of sharing it. Unfortunately for them, AFAIK that doesn't break any laws. Now what they need to do is lobby to get that made illegal or have it specifically mentioned as a rider to an existing law. Then they might have a leg to stand on.

Jack

What's a 'share file' looks like on your computer? Seriously.

 

[jinjuku]

The biggest blow to this view is that there are probably a lot of people who don't realize that they have a share file. How many people actually read the EULA agreement, setup directions, and follow what is being installed?

I agree totally with mtrycrafts that they don't want to admit wrong behavior and are looking for a way to make their wrong a right.

-pat

Let's be realistic: I have never met a person that installed KaZaA/Limewire/eDonkey/eMule that DIDN'T know what it is intended to do.

It's not like the end user created a folder on their c:\ drive, then right clicked, shared it out to the everyone group, then punched open their firewall for RPC

Instead they installed an app that allows them to both receive and serve content. An app the connects to a server out there and advertises what is being shared. Most likely what will happen is a rider as mentioned will be written into the law to cover this. Common sense loses yet again and requires yet more attorney speak.

I am all for band doing self/free releases, I am all for alternate forms of getting music and paying less for it. But I am not so naive to think that the artists that I like will be around for long if they can't feed themselves and their family.

I am pissed at the illegal file sharers, I am pissed at the MPAA for CSS and the DCMA. I could care less about RIAA because the affect me 0%. Thank god they didn't figure out an encryption scheme when there was a published CD standard.

 

[pzaur]

Let's be realistic: I have never met a person that installed KaZaA/Limewire/eDonkey/eMule that DIDN'T know what it is intended to do.

This probably says more about the group you hang with. There are plenty of people that use these programs and don't understand what they can actually do or what the user is actually doing (illegally).

It's not like the end user created a folder on their c:\ drive, then right clicked, shared it out to the everyone group, then punched open their firewall for RPC

Absolutely correct. The program automatically creates a "share folder". I believe the program then searches out for files to offer to share from your computer.

I am all for band doing self/free releases, I am all for alternate forms of getting music and paying less for it. But I am not so naive to think that the artists that I like will be around for long if they can't feed themselves and their family.

BTW - Nine Inch Nails has released the latest album as a free download from their website. Very cool piece of work. If only I could burn the 24/96 flac files to a DVD-A...I can do it with the lower quality flac files.

I am pissed at the illegal file sharers, I am pissed at the MPAA for CSS and the DCMA.

Agreed here. The only thing this does is line the pockets of the lawyers. I doubt very much (read -> None) is given to the artists.

I could care less about RIAA because the affect me 0%.

They already do affect you by tying up the court systems, raising production fees, constant battles to keep our fair-use of products real, and so on and so on.


I'm just trying to point out the the MPAA is trying to pass the view that because they think a crime has been committed through your computer that you should owe them money.

-pat

 

[pzaur]

What's a 'share file' looks like on your computer? Seriously.

A shared file looks no different than any other. It's the folder that has a modification to it. I don't know if any of the above listed programs create this icon when the folder is deemed to be a "shared" folder through the network it's attache dot.

See the attached thumbnail.

You can make any folder a "shared" folder by:
1. Right-clicking
2. go to "Properties"
3. click the "Sharing" tab
4. check "Make available to network" or something similar

-pat

 

[rnatalli]

Doesn't really matter since the MPAA would simply have their own people download from the computer in question, claim infringement, and not pursue action against those "downloaders." I have trouble understanding why people don't simply pay the price of a candy bar to download a song from iTunes or Amazon. I also don't understand this need to share their files. Perhaps I've already been brainwashed.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Doesn't really matter since the MPAA would simply have their own people download from the computer in question, claim infringement, and not pursue action against those "downloaders." I have trouble understanding why people don't simply pay the price of a candy bar to download a song from iTunes or Amazon. I also don't understand this need to share their files. Perhaps I've already been brainwashed.

I've talked with a few people who like that other people can "see" what they like and listen to. In their minds it's kind of along the lines of posting your amateur photo's online to "share" with others. Except they don't actually have the same rights to the movies/music as they would with a picture they took themselves. Not everyone is actually clear that others can download the files. (I'm aware that ignorance is no excuse, but it is a reality)

Jack