Comments on: MPAA’s shock horror study

By: porn

porn — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:28:47 +0000

Hello, Download porn my free porn collection at http://boysfood.torrentspyporn.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:14:03 +0000

Thats why I don’t download mainstream movies. I just use it to download porn. It’s too easy right now to track exactly who you are, where you are at and what you’re downloading – since the MPAA is made of the major studios, downloading adult movies falls out of their purview.

Besides – lets be honest. It takes upwards of two weeks sometimes to download 700Mbs. I won’t waste my time when I can just buy the darn thing on ebay or amazon.com for $10.00 and the quality will be better by a significant margin.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:42:24 +0000

Interesting story. I find the timing interesting also. Last night when I got home I checked my mail. Upon sifting through the junk mail I came accross a 4×8 manilla colored envelope, which was from my cable company. I opened it up and read the letter. It stated that my cable company was approached by the MPAA, and that my IP address has had been used to download a movie from a p2p network. More specifically, BTclient. The letter followed with details of the files that I had downloaded.

Needles to say I shut the computer off, after it had been running for a month or so, downloading constantly.

Hopefuly the MPAA doesnt go after me, after all it was just one movie.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:17:37 +0000

this crap is so phkin sickening but they keep on getting away with it

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:43:10 +0000

I love dvd shrink!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:40:05 +0000

Hey arseface,

So unless the price of intellectual property fits into your view of reasonableness you have the right to pirate the property on P2P?

“iTunes does some business at $0.99 per song, but p2p would fade away and the RIAA would make a hell of a lot more money if the going rate were just $0.09 per song.”

I have no sympathy for the RIAA, but your argument sucks. The owner of the intellectual property has the right to charge whatever the hell they feel like – whether its .01 or $150.00 song. You have absolutley no standing to dictate what is a fair price –

YOU DO however have th right to decide if you will purchase the copyrighted work from the author at the selling price, but you do not have the right to say – “the price is to high I’ll steal it on a black market.”

I’m all for P2P use, but we need to make reasonable arguments.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:50:55 +0000

“No entertainment industry study has ever shown how a download – movie, music or anything else – equals a concomitant sales loss”
Broaden that…no one crying “losses due to piracy!” has ever shown that there has been lost sales due to “piracy” The figures that the BSA, the RIAA, and the MPAA regularly spit out have to do with the value of materials that are monoply-priced. Most “pirates” forced to pay these prices would opt to not purchased the “pirated” digital information. iTunes does some business at $0.99 per song, but p2p would fade away and the RIAA would make a hell of a lot more money if the going rate were just $0.09 per song. The convenience/price ratio would come into balance. My entertainment budget isn’t changing or growing–vendors are just going to have to smarten up and figure out how to compete for the existing dollars, instead of trying to extort them out of me by hiding behind dying monopoly tactics