Comments on: Pay us $15.4M, Hollywood orders Pirate Bay

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:51:11 +0000

The music industry cartel plays their songs for free on our TVs and radios, in our cars, and in the shops on a 24 hour basis until you can’t get it out of your head and then they sue for millions those who choose not to buy them. They are crooks. An mp3 is worth nothing, it can be reproduced at zero cost at no loss to the record industry cartel and if I was TorrentSpy I would not pay the criminals the shhitt off my shoe.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:37:39 +0000

PIRATAE LONGE VIVENT ET CORVPTORES OMNES INTERFICIENTVR.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:35:15 +0000

It would be cheaper to give them REAL cash then Monopoly Money. You would have buy lot’s of games money to get that amount.

I say Zimbabwe currency sound good with 100,000+% inflation rate. The nice thing with Zimbabwe it is a dollar, well Zimbabwe dollar. A dollar is a dollar.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:32:13 +0000

I think I’ve figured out why they feel they can sue over free to air broadcasts. The laws which gave us permission to record TV shows and movies occurred before the Internet, and thus Hollywood believes they can make a case as it doesn’t apply to other formats. At least they want to prevent the same thing from happening here, and have gone in like rabid monkeys to not only do so, but also seek to amend and change the law, and do so by any crooked means possible. Threats, bribery, extortion, whatever; also demanding “compensation” at the same time. Sound about right?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:20:07 +0000

Write them a blank check (but don’t sign it)

And whatever you do, DON’T give them your account number!

Why would they demand money when they know that it would get thrown out of court? Because they know nobody wants to pay exorbitant court costs either. So it’s just extortion at best, but Hollywood understands well all those fraudulent ways. They are based on it and portray it in their movies.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:16:04 +0000

I second Monopoly Money, seeing as they are monopolies.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:41:47 +0000

Ah Brokep, that’s too bad about the 100 kronor

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:20:42 +0000

I wonder how long it is going to take the media cops/enforcement groups to figure out this money spend to get the publicity could have been had cheaper? Other than the publicity value, they have achieved nothing financially. Don’t you wish you had an unending flow of money to drop into the bucket?

What traditionally has happened in the past, is a site gets closed down, 20 more open their doors at the least. Thank you Napster for showing the public the way it was done. Not the corporate owner still birth in place today but the original one. When Napster got closed down, it gave birth to file sharing as we know it today. Hunting down and closing sites, (or wack-a-mole) will only result in others opening more sites. It’s already to the point it’s so widespread that there isn’t enough money in their piggy bank nor enough court time to close them all down. So they are going after the big ones for the news splash and happy to pick up any little players they pick up along the route.

But what they are not being successful at and know it, is closing down file sharing at all. Why you think they are trying to get the ISPs involved in filtering? Because they know they are losing ground and are not making a dent in it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:58:13 +0000

I say pay ‘em… in Monopoly money.

Nice try, Hollywood. US laws don’t apply in Sweden.