The thing is, it is illegal to download or upload copyrighted works,
the concept of file sharing and actual file sharing is not illegal. I
do not condone illegal file sharing, but am just trying to clarify a
few things.
The MPAA (and RIAA) have not and will not target individual
downloaders. There is no real way to get them. They are not a law
enforcement agency. They cannot entrap individual users. If you
download from them, and they are the rightful owners, then there is no
law broken, even if it is widely know that the service being used is
to illegally obtain files. Plus having downloaded one file will not be
worthwhile anyway in court.
They will focus and be able to bust those who share (uploaders) works
they do not own. These are the people who are illegally distributing,
offering, sharing and causing the industry the most harm, and
potentially profiting from this type of activity.
Bottom line is if you do not share, then you run little to no risk of
being caught.
But people need to realize the impact reaches far beyond whether or
not they get caught. They are hurting our economy. A great number of
jobs and resources goes into creating movies and songs, and you are
stealing money out of their pockets and retailers, etc..
For me, I do not like the threat of viruses and poor sound and picture
quality. That is why I stay away from such activity. That is the
greater threat. The fact that it is also illegal makes it even less
appealing.
Just buy the damn videos y'all. The industry will benefit by offering
an I-Tunes type service for those who want to get movies via
downloading for an affordable price. Say -8 bucks for a movie. YOu
have to go by the hardware and software to burn it and the dual
layered DVD's are like 4 bucks a pop I think.
BOB
Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<telecom23.534.3@telecom-digest.org>:
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Taking a cue from the music industry, film
> studios and the Motion Picture Association of America said on Thursday
> that they were readying the first lawsuits against people suspected of
> illegally distributing movies over the Internet.
> The civil suits will seek to stop trading and damages of up
> to $30,000 per film, the MPAA said, adding that damages could
> reach $150,000 if the infringement was deemed willful.
> Record companies have led the way with such lawsuits, targeting major
> traders of song files who use Kazaa and other programs to swap songs
> on the Web. The movie trade group, representing Hollywood's major
> studios, plans to launch its own legal challenges beginning Nov. 16.
> Studios have been slow to release DVD-quality films on the Internet
> because of the twin piracy and technological shortcomings -- it takes
> hours to download even a film at lower quality levels, while it takes
> minutes or seconds to download a song. Improving technology is cutting
> the gap, though.
> "That distinction is rapidly vanishing, so we are taking these actions
> to try and prevent this illegal activity from becoming mainstream,"
> the MPAA said in a statement, adding that future technologies could
> allow movie downloads in as few as six seconds.
> MPAA President and Chief Executive Dan Glickman said at a news
> conference that the music industry has had an impact on music piracy
> with its lawsuits.
> That campaign has had a mixed reception from consumers and some in the
> industry, who have urged movie and music makers to develop easy-to-use
> technology for buying or renting content that would be a viable
> alternative to illegal downloads.
> Apple Computer Inc's iTunes is often heralded as an example of legal
> song buying that works.
> "The industry should be thinking of new ways to deploy the new
> technology rather than suing the consumer," said Mediaport
> Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Helen Seltzer, which makes kiosks,
> or automatic teller machines, to buy and download music. "We find that
> if students are given an easy way to download, they will do it and pay
> for it happily," she said.
> An MPAA attorney said studios would launch fewer lawsuits than the
> record industry, which has pursued more than 5,000 people to
> date. Studios would also use "John Doe" lawsuits that allow them to
> pursue file traders without knowing the traders' identities.
> Chris Ruhland, a former studio lawyer now at Orrick Herrington &
> Sutcliffe, forecast the movie makers would win their days in
> court. "The law is very clear that unauthorized distribution of
> copyrighted material is illegal," he said.
> Reuters/VNU
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What MPAA and RIAA do not understand
(or pretend not to understand) is the purposes for which the net was
developed: It was developed for the sharing of ideas and files, at
no charge between the participants. What MPAA/RIAA seem to want is
the ability to put out their goods all over the public sidewalk, but
they do not feel people should be free to to examine same goods at
their leisure without paying for them. The net was around for a long
time before MPAA/RIAA came around wanting to put their trash out on
the public roadway, and they wanted to change the rules the minute
they got here from a place of free expression to a place where you
have to pay to view their stuff. There are plenty of ways to mark
directories (on computers) to keep people out of them who have not
paid. But it seems to be more to their advantage to use the net as
an advertising media then file suit against people who stop to look
(too long, and too extensively) rather than just move along. I do not
really have any sympathy for those relative newcomers to the net. PAT]
Bob Smythe (billyzane1@excite.com)