billyzane1@excite.com (Bob Smythe) wrote in message
news:<telecom23.546.8@telecom-digest.org>:
> 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]
I heard somewhere that those caught could receive not only fines, but
jail time-is this true?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not suprise me at all. Nor
does it surprise me that they just toss out lawsuits all over the
place without even having the *name* or *any identity* of the persons
they intend to sue. I can see where 'John Doe' might be a valid way
to sue someone you had caught when you could not otherwise get his
name, but lawsuits at random against John Does 1 through 9999 (fill
in the names, addresses and particulars when you find the person)
seems to me to be a gross abuse of the legal system. But they seem to
be setting out the lawsuits, then finding the person later on and
already having the suit set up. Not a good faith thing, IMO. PAT]
Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:31:42 -0500
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Looking For VOIP Provider That Can Do Business With Government
Message-ID: <telecom23.556.12@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 23, Issue 556, Message 12 of 19
Lines: 17
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to T. Sean Weintz:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Take your choice of them; personally
> I suggest Vonage. If your volume of business is of any value to them
> (and I think it might be), they'll figure out a way to write off the
> 'tax' they think is due. PAT]
Pat-
Problem is it would NOT be high volume. Just 2-3 lines. What I plan on
doing is hanging them off our PBX and having it route only the long
distance calls over the VOIP lines.
Have spoken to the Billing Dept at Vonage and they actually sounded
annoyed at me for even asking.
charsand (charlize_sand@yahoo.com)