Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

4 Responses to “Interview with a movie ‘pirate’”

1. Reader's Write Says:
   October 31st, 2005 at 9:51 pm

   lets face it if you are thick enough to use kazaa then you deserve to be busted!

2. Reader's Write Says:
   October 31st, 2005 at 9:53 pm

   Jane Doe’s website is here:

   http://www.webspawner.com/users/sunshine3224/index.html

   – Tinfoil

3. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 1:54 am

   Jane Doe: I used Kazaa-Lite, the 100% safe, 100% legal, and 100% fun (until the MPAA sues Me) program.

   Jane Doe: I use a DSL using PPOE. I don’t keep Kazaa program on my pc I use it then I delete it and install it if im using it again. I usually try to disable file sharing but obviously it slipped my mind on this occasion.

   What where did you get that Kazaa-Lite was 100% safe, 100% legal, and 100 % fun? If you though that Kazaa-Lite was 100% safe, then you must be born of the stone age. Anytime that you connect to the net on your pc, you are exposing your ip addresse unless you mask it, hide it, or redirect it somewhere else.

   Why delete Kazaa-Lite and then reinstall it? Waste of time doing that if you ask me. Also why disable file sharing? This is leaching. This is bad. Why do you think that you can download while not giving something back? How do you think that the network exist anyways? Surely people have to give something for others to recieve it. If you don’t give in my perspective, then you shouldn’t recieve.

   Also on one of the pages posted on your blog, it says that “The lawsuit on file with the court and contains claims against the unknown defendant for alleged copyright infrengement; specifically in an online medium (p2p software) to download or make avalable copyrighted music without authorization.

   Since when does a movie change from a movie to copyrighted music? I would say that they are making false claims against you since it was a move and not copyrighted music.

   Also why get tmdmovies.com involved? Even though you may have downloaded a screener or a cam, there is no sense in mentioning their name. Your question about them is valid though. If you haven’t noticed though, they upload/download mainly through irc. So actually, you were getting a left over or spillover from someone that downloaded it on irc. Could this be considered infrengement on your behalf for downloading their works in another way than they way that they serve the movies because they don’t directly send them to p2p?

4. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 4:22 am

   I realize that the source of the movie file the irc is not that important Lord knows i dont want anyone else to have this headache.(They label the bottom of the movies with the website name anyways so no need to name names). Its the issue to me that if the MPAA is seeming more to me like they want to pick on the little fish. And also that the evidence against me is only 18 min of one movie and 12 of another how is this destroying the movie industry

5. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 5:57 am

   Ah, such compassion for the plight of the downtrodden victims of greedy fat cats. Not everyone has been fortunate enough to acquire your vast computer savvy. The ugly viciousness perpetrated by those parasitic maggots in the entertainment cartels against unsuspecting and essentially guileless criminals such as our movie pirate, Jane Doe, is a sad commentary on the once noble and admirable American ethic of neighbors helping neighbors and defending the underdog against the unreasonable exercise of power.

   But perhaps you are right — perhaps we need to harden ourselves and become more street savvy. We need to educate our young in the wiles of the criminal mind in order to better defend ourselves. Some sage observed that the only way to succeed is to be paranoid — very, very paranoid.

6. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 8:45 am

   My sympathies for you lady. Unlike the first responder, I don’t think you were dumb; I think you were uninformed and had no reason at the time to be informed. It is a shame that this sort of legal actions are the way you find out.

   I assume the last post that made mention of times was you responding in these posts. Glad to see you here, sorry it is under these circumstances.

   The times you gave sound like you got neither of the movies you are accused of getting in, in their entirety. How can anyone tell what a file actually is without getting them in? There are a few players out there that will play partial files but most won’t unless you have the whole banana in. There is no mark on the files that tell you it is copyrighted. There is no distinglishing mark that sets it apart from any public domain file. All you have is a name. Until that file is totally in, it remains a name, not a usable file, nor in my mind an infringement. Unless you viewed it, how would you know? I have seen files named just about anything you would care to think of but the true name. Sometimes it is a guessing game as to what it really is.

   The cartels are getting a black eye in public opinion in this sue’em all campaign. I know that doesn’t help you in the slightest. But were I you, no matter how this turns out, I would hit them where it hurts for the rest of my life. I would make sure that no one I met, no one I knew, and no family member went without knowing of your experience. I would do everything in my power to prevent or influance folks from buying anything that funds those cartels. It would be a life long crusade for me. (In fact it already is though I haven’t been put in your position.) I would make sure that I personally was responciable for at least 10 times the headache and hassle they put you through. (not to mention the loss of money they would realise with this negetive publicity).

   I myself refuse to buy music from the cartels. I refuse to go to the movies and I refuse to buy any sort of dvd in the stores from them. I also refuse to finance the on-going terror campaign they are waging against the public. I used to buy movies every month. I do so no longer.

7. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 11:28 am

   thanks for thoughts it does help. The questions you raise about viewing movie files have also crossed my mind and no copyright notice . I am not shure how it will all go though i guess i thought i would give them a run for the money. I am in no way trying to say downloading movies is ok. Im definately no movie pirate though !!
   thanks again.

8. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 1:48 pm

   So what country are you from ?

   You sound like a FOOL.

   Actually uninstalliing a filesharing program after you use sounds like a good thing to do considering the present day legal situation surrounding file sharing these days.

   If the program don’t reside on a harddrive then it is obvious that your computer’s ip address won’t be exposed to the world to see.

   You say not sharing files is called leaching but i would take a wild quess if YOU got served a letter from the RIAA or the MPAA and you had to crap $4000.00 for illegal filesharing YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BE CRYING HOW UNFAIR THIS SITUATION WOULD BE.

   I used to have the LIMEWIRE file saring program and the primary reason i uninstalled it from all of my computers is even with all of my modern computer systems that are fairly new and having a high speed internet connection even downloading mp3s can be a questionable proposition even under the best of circumstances.

   The sound quality of said same is not of very good quality and there is not that many mp3s that can be downloaded at ethernet speed.

   The technology has a lot of bugs in it and it is even worse with movie downloading.

   With legal issues aside P2P downloading is a WASTE OF TIME.

   Maybe someday if the technology improved i may be interested.

   My Younger brother knew what he was doing when he climbed up a telephone pole close to my parents place and made an illegal tv cable hookup twenty years ago.

   The facts today is filesharing is ILLEGAL in the united states and a person would have less problems if he bought the original cd or dvd and cooked it at home and stayed off the internet.

   IT WOULD BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY.

9. Reader's Write Says:
   November 1st, 2005 at 2:06 pm

   Fact – you are thick enough to believe everything that a shady company like kazaa is telling you. Fact you are stupid enough not to do some checking on the net to find out if it is actually legal or not which goes to prove that some people will believe everything they are told. Fact no one in their right minds can possibly use the old line – ‘oh i though it was legal’ when in fact they are paying exactly zero for the movies and music that they get through p2p and Fact anyone who removes the program in the vain hope that when their door is smashed down and dozens of police bust their asses would make the slightest difference is bloody gullible to put it mildly,the fact is that most assholes out there who are responsible for the net being over run with viruses , spyware, malware etc have little or no knowledge of how computers work and even less knowledge of how to fix them – question would you allow someone to drive a car without a driving license – you get what you deserve for being ignorant about what you are trying.

10. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 2:09 pm

    quote : Not everyone has been fortunate enough to acquire your vast computer savvy.

    well maybe you should try it in the first place if you don’t know what you are doing hahahaha

11. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    This poster has one valid point, don’t use the Internet for filesharing. I don’t like the crap that is produced by the catels, but If I did, I would work with people I know to get the content I wanted.

    Here is the way this works:

    People in a filesharing pool either buy a DVD Recorder or a computer that has video input and a DVD burner. Each person in the pool subscribes to a specific “premium” channel such as HBO Showtime, or The Movie Channel. A list of desired movies is maintained by the group.
    When a listem movie comes on a channel that a pool member subscribes to, he or she records the movie and transmits it directly to the receipient. The transmission can be done via FreeWan (if people in the pool are on the same cell), mail or by simply dropping off the DVD. This idea is great for people who live in dormatories within the military or college communites.

    Of Course, this post is for educational and entertainment use only, and I do not encourage anyone to participate in any illegal or other activity that would offend these precious cartels.

12. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    I first want to say, “Thank you for your service to your country.” People like you are the ones that made America. The cartels, RIAA and MPAA are the one who are working feverishly to pervert the minds and morality of Americans like us. As far as I’m concerned the RIAA, MPAA, and others of their ilk are what is DESTROYING America. Do you have a website set up where you can receive funds to fight these bastards? I would be happy to contribute.

    Do you have a sign on the back of you car that says “I’m being ripped of by the movie cartel, please don’t buy DVD’s.”? Yes, the cartels are big and can squash any one of use like a bug, however if we swarm these cartels by the thousands, we can drive them out of business or at least to a more humble position. I know I am personally reponsible for creating over a hundred ex-cartel customers.

    These people would really like to catch me sharing movies that they produce, but they will not because I do not use or like or even share their product. Their product is crap and would waste space on my computer.

    I haven’t watched a movie (cartel produced) that I really liked in over 3 years. Since this “Sue them” campaign has been brought to my attention, I have not rented or bought a movie. The cartels lost me as a customer. I spend at least 30 minutes a day coming up with ideas on how to fight these media cartels. I do this because a have a pathological hate for any type of bully. Here are a few ideas that are on p2pnet.

    http://p2pnet.net/story/4023 Fine them back!

    http://p2pnet.net/story/6514 FreeWan

    http://p2pnet.net/story/2141 Secure p2p (Sneaker Net)

    http://p2pnet.net/story/426 Sticker campaign

    http://p2pnet.net/story/6283 We’re Not Taking It Anymore

    A couple of my own ideas include starting a file sharing pool of trusted friends, contributing a few bucks to defense campaigns, and
    creating fake movie files, sharing them via peer to peer programs and only allowing those on peer guardian’s black list to connect to you filesharing program. This is WAR, and we need to rally the troops so that we can win it quickly. We will WIN if a lot of people put forth only a little effort.

13. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    amazing how much bullshit people come out with when getting caught

14. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pm

    Thanks for your sensitivity to this ex-marine.

    Since Jane Doe didn’t say anything about the process that she used, only the method, your charge that she leeched those files is unfounded. You don’t know that she didn’t leave Kazaa running long enough to upload a few copies, she even alludes to the fact that might have been the case. Also, you obviously have better moral sense in P2P than Jane.

    As for the movie/music confusion, this leads me to beleive that she really does need help in sorting out the legal issues. Apparently you are a legal expert as well as a P2P expert.

15. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
16. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 5:53 pm

    quite funny actually how thick some people are doh ill use kazaa with my AOL dooh

17. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 6:54 pm

    Hre is a suggestion.

    The lawyers for the plaintiff is Loeb & Loeb.
    In the case where we sued Peermusic, Peermusic was represented by Loeb & Loeb too.

    After we proved that Peermusic infringed our songs thru the licensing of the song to others many time, which resulted in a television broadcast of the song and the production of several recordings and the licensing of the song throughout the world, and an attempted licensing for an advertisemtn wit our song, Loeb & Loeb argued that it was all a minor technical error and that the plaintiffs should not expect a killing. As a result we got a $5,000 damage award, even though Peermusic earned more that $35,000 from the proved and admitted infringement and caused additional damages by destroying our credibility in the music industry when we claimed we owned the song. The reason that the judge, if we can call that a reason, was that the judge thought that $5,000 was our actual loss.

    Using the same logic that was used on our case, of actual loss, the making of copies of two dvds would represent an actual loss of about $15.00 in profits, and considering that the studio lawyers are the same as in our case, and the court system is the same (federal court), then logic would say that the most that can be awarded to the movies studios in this case is $20.000. After equity in justice is very important if the legal system is to be taken as a honorable system.

    The suggestion is this: Send a $20.00 check to Loeb & Loeb, through the court, and cite their own Loeb & Loeb arguments in our case (Venegas vs. Peermusic – see our web site) and see what the judge’s reaction is. He should order Loeb & Loeb to accept the payment.

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas.com

18. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 8:49 pm

    Christopher T. Holland (State Bar No. 164053)

    Anne E. Kearns (State Bar No. 183336)

    Kathy M. Sarria (State Bar No 181322)

    Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP

    114 Sansome Street, Suit 400
    San Fransisco, CA 94104
    Phone: (415) 249-8330
    Fax: (415) 249-8333
    Email: cholland@kksrr.com, akearns@kksrr.com, ksarria@kksrr.com
    administrator@kksrr.com

    This firm takes up a large portion if not all of a building

    Karen R. Thorland (State Bar No. 172092)

    Loeb & Loeb LLP
    10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200
    Los Angeles, Ca 90067
    Phone: (310)282-2000
    Fax: (310)282-2200
    Email: kthorland@loeb.com

    Those who can call these lawyers for free may want to call them to ask them why their client insists on suing Marines, children and others who have done them little harm. Others may want to email them and ask the same thing. Another thing to do is publish this information all over the net and encourage tohers to do the same. Please, only send one email or make only one phone call per person. Email them only once, do not email or phone these people multiple times. You should not post their information on spammers’ websites or anything that can cause them to cry about harassment.

19. Reader's Write Says:
    November 1st, 2005 at 9:27 pm

    Sony is istalling malware on people’s computer without their permission or knowlege. Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act or
    SPY ACT will make this illegal. If I were using Winblows, then I would sue Sony in small claims court. Everyone who has been tricked into installing this software shoul sue Sony in small claims court. Sony would have to send a representative to each court room to fight the suit or they would have to pay up.

    http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html

20. Reader's Write Says:
    November 2nd, 2005 at 3:03 am

    That is a great idea. Good looking out. They can’t have thier cake and eat it too. That past ruling should have set precedent. It is worth looking into on precedent alone.

21. Reader's Write Says:
    November 2nd, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    “Loeb & Loeb argued that it was all a minor technical error and that the plaintiffs should not expect a killing.”

    A correction: the term used by the Loeb & Loeb lawyer was “windfall” and not “killing”.

    Clearly what RIAA and MPAA want is a windfall killing whenever someone copies a song or a movie. And thelawyers also make a windfall killing in legal fees from cases that at best should only be small courts claim.

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas.com

22. Reader's Write Says:
    November 3rd, 2005 at 5:21 pm

    Illegal??

    Why should it be illegal to begin with?

    Just because I don’t want to pay $20 to see some crappy movie doesn’t make me a criminal.

    If they are putting out good quality movies, they will surely see me as a loyal customer as they quality you get from downloaded movies are questionable at best.

    Movies like Bewitched, I mean come on $10 admission plus $7 for drinks and pop corn?

    WHY DON’T YOU THINK THAT IS ILLEGAL?

    IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO PUT OUT CRAPPY MOVIES AND CHARGING CONSUMERS THROUGH THE NOSE TO SIT THROUGH IT.

23. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 7:14 am

    “Jane Doe: I ‘m a 36 year old female in California, recently married. I live in a mostly retired community so I spend time assisting others in the complex. I also volunteer time for a local charity that raises money to help families with adoption services and counselling. I help with getting information out to members and make blankets to give to the children. I enjoy sewing making handmade teddy bears, computers and gardening for hobbies. I enjoy being creative and helping others. My source of income is from my veteran’s compensation. I served in the Marine Corps 90-94 deployed to Saudi Arabia (Desert Storm) and Somalia (Restore Hope).”…and she heals the sick with a touch of her hands and raises the dead long in ther graves, but she’s still a thief.

24. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 7:18 am
25. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 7:20 am
26. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 3:57 pm

    If she is a thief as you said, what did she remove from the rightful owner? I bet that the rightful owner still has their copy or original. She stole nothing!!! If she is guilty of anything, it is infringing on a copyright.

    Giving the cartels the benefit of the doubt, the maximum their “Settlement Centers” be asking for is the amount that a video rental store charges punters for each lost movie DVD’s plus a small collection fee. For two movies that should come to a very maximum of $300.00 assuming that she did not own a copy of either movie. Anything above this amount is extortion, plain and simple!

27. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 6:30 pm

    Hey there sorry to hear about your plight. I have a suggestion myself – and this was something I did when I received one of those lame letters over a year ago (I was “sharing and downloading” some lame movie my crazy ex girlfriend put on – I think it was “Clueless” or something. To be honest I was more terrified of being taken to court and being accused of downloading such a lame movie than anything else to be honest… I mean it’s one thing to be taken to court for downloading Lord of the Rings or something but Clueless?? I’m not surprised they sued cause I would. There must be some guy in Sony or Paramount or wherever looking through people’s list going “Let’s teach this guy a lesson for having no taste whatsoever and wasting everyone’s bandwidth by getting this rubbish”.

    Anyway after recovering from the shock of it all I wrote back to them essentially saying that I run a wireless server which has no encryption so someone probably logged into my computer and used my broadband to download. This is complete bull of course but hey… I’m dumb enough to download Clueless so I must be dumb enough to leave my wireless server unprotected. THEN at the end of the letter I said that I had DELETED the offending file and INSTALLED ENCRYPTION AND FIREWALL technology so prevent this from happening again.

    Now if you know anything about computers (and most lawyers don’t) OR you’re playing hardball, you may say “I don’t believe you. Prove it or I’m taking you to court.” which is what they effectively said to me in their next letter. At that point it’s IMPORTANT NOT TO REVEAL A WEAKNESS so I wrote back basically saying “It’s the truth. I work in an office processing mail (or in your case, you’re retired and spend your time helping old folk). I am not a computer programmer or IT expert or a student so I don’t even know what P2P is. I just bought a computer to do word processing and the router came free of charge and my neighbour set it up for me because I thought it would be nice to surf in bed with my laptop (or whatever). So someone else must have broken in and done all of this. (Then I added some even more bull at the end by saying:) In fact, shortly after I received your letter, my computer had to be completely reinstalled because the intruder introduced a virus into my system so I had to pay $100 to a technician to come fix it.”

    Then I said

    “If you wanna prove to the judge that I, a working citizen with no formal training in computers had the ability to learn how to P2P download, then be my guest. You are suing me. You are the ones who must prove that I am lying and that someone didn’t really break in and do this on my computer to win your case”.

    You can see how difficult this is would be for them to show, because at that point all they will have is an ip address and a file on your system. They will have no idea what your computer is or who has access to it. Now you may not be able to persuade someone that you are IT illiterate 50 years from now, but in our lifetimes it is still something we can get away with. Even in court. In fact the judge himself may sympathise with your story.

    And guess what.. it has been over 15 months and I have not heard anything from them.

    So the moral of the story is – don’t be afraid of going to court. If you stick to the same story, as long as it’s enough to introduce doubt that you were responsible for the downloading, and you are do not have an IT background, then the judge is MORE LIKELY TO BELIEVE YOU!

    Obviousy I will remain anonymous here because I am divulging things which some may not like, but if you want to know more just post and I will pick up your comment.

28. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 11:26 pm

    apparently cuse you caused yourself and 400 other people to not see these movies….
    $4000/$10/ticket = 400 lost ticket sales????? WTF I think not!

29. Reader's Write Says:
    November 4th, 2005 at 11:45 pm

    ” you get what you deserve for being ignorant about what you are trying.”

    keep that in mind when someone kicks your ass for being an asshole.

30. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 3:34 am
31. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 8:20 am

    I greatly appreciate your thoughts.
    First of all my dispute lies in this these some of the paragraphs in the complaint from the MPAA

    Paragraph 4 lines 5-13
    Each time the Defendant unlawfully
    distributes a free copy of one of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
    motion pictures to others over the Internet, each person
    who copies that motion picture can then distribute that unlawful
    copy to others without any significant degradation in sound and
    picture quality thus, a Defendant’s distribution of even one
    unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly
    instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to
    a limitless number of people.

    Paragraph 10 Lines 4 -6
    Each of the Copyrighted Motion Pictures contains a
    copyright notice advising the viewer that the motion picture is
    protected by the copyright laws

    Paragraph 11 Lines 7 – 10
    The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
    each Defendant, without the permission or consent of the Plaintiffs,
    has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution
    system to distribute to the public,

    Paragraph 12 Lines 20 – 22
    The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful,
    intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the
    rights of the Plaintiffs .

32. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 8:27 am

    hey thanks for the input so you think im thief for a 18 min of a movie and 12 of another allegadly tracked to my IP address. Do you sit in your safe little home and judge the world cause your so perfect. Have you even read the complaint by the MPAA.

33. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 8:36 am

    thank you for your wise and worldly opinion. Fact my issue is not regarding the downloading or Kazaa (oh by the way i hear the name of the file is exaclty what you get when its downloaded). Im not being sued for downloading.

34. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 8:47 am

    Thanks everyone for your input both positive and negative. To all you pc gurus who offer so freely you insults go lock yourself back in your room with your computer because its probably the only thing close to social activity you get. Im sending my response to the court this week and to the lawyers seems i filed bankruptcy and put this situation into the paperwork and was still contacted by certain individauls attempting to collect a debt. Seems that its discharged unless its willful and malicious intent. SEE YA!!!

35. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    The proposed payment is way too much, since the plaintiffs had no actual damages as is the case when a dvd renter looses a dvd that the rental store had to pay.

    Mitigation: To act in such a way as to cause an offense to seem less serious.

    Actually if plaintiffs never billed the alleged infringer, the plaintiff should not be paid anything, since the plaintiff did not mitigate the damages, which may be the earnings from the sale of the dvd. Not mitigating the damages means that no effort was made by plaintiff to collect the money it deserved to make, something that is required before a lawsuit is filed to collect the money.

    This is important so that the courts are not flloded and made to be a debt collection agency.

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas.com

36. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    here is a better legal defiition

    MITIGATE DAMAGES – Taking action to avoid or reduce damages.

    A person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to “mitigate” those damages; that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity he may have had under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage.

    So, if a Plaintiff [within the limitations of any disability he may have sustained] fails to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available to him under all the circumstances, then the amount of damages awarded may be reduced by the amount he could have reasonably realized if he had taken advantage of such opportunity.

37. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 2:13 pm

    Paragraph 4 lines 5-13
    “distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people.”

    Wow!
    The above may be true regardless of how the movie files are distributed, wether lawful or unlawful, and regardless of the price. For example, if a free copy of a dvd is given to a paid for and dishonest movie critic by the movie producer (a frequent phenomena), it may and likekely result in limitless number of copies. A sold copy of a dvd will produce identical results.

    What this all means is that once you send out the door a product that can be freely copied and the copies are pefect, the inevitable will result. People will copy. It is as natural as breathing.

    Surely the judge that will handle the case copied records into cassettes when a kid, just as Clinton tried marujuana when young. It was to be expected, since no one lives an perfect vacuum.

    What the cartels want to do is the equivalent of offering free food for the taking at the supermarket A and then expexting people to go to supermarket B, where the food is sold. The cartel expectations are foolish.

    BTW, I wonder if any judge has ever inhibited him/herself from being named judge or from a a case because he/she copied cassettes and was thus a thief and criminal. They all copied cassettes and simply were never charged.

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas.com

38. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 4:22 pm

    “all they will have is an ip address and a file on your system.”

    No…no one can prove you have a file in your computer, unless the cartel gets a court order to inspect your computer (after you erased all the files in it, of course).

    Also it is possible to download a movie file and after viewing the file movie and your government’s FBI “you are a criminal” embedded warning, you decided to erase the file.

    And yes, it is possible that a program download files of any type, including movie and mp3 files, into your computer without your authorization and that you are unaware that the program does what it does. Of course after you erase all your files you cannot even know such a program was installed in your computer.

    Not a troll.

39. Reader's Write Says:
    November 5th, 2005 at 11:22 pm

    I am definately NOT CLICKING on any of the links above. Jon, this is the second time this yoyo has attempted this. I suspect he is trying to load something into your site. That isn’t normal post scripts. Anyway you can block not only his ip but his DNS. Lacking that prehaps legal action and investigation by law enforcement is called for in this one case. (Just a thought) Feel free to delete this post with the offending one above it.

40. Reader's Write Says:
    May 24th, 2006 at 1:41 am

    http://qion.info/s-bambini.html bambini
    http://qion.info/s-bandi.html bandi
    http://qion.info/s-basse.html basse
    http://qion.info/s-bed+bug.html bed bug
    http://qion.info/s-belk.html belk
    http://qion.info/s-chelsea+flower+show.html chelsea flower show
    http://qion.info/s-chemistry+science.html chemistry science
    http://qion.info/s-china+steel.html china steel
    http://qion.info/s-choir.html choir
    http://qion.info/s-christmas+carol.html christmas carol
    http://qion.info/s-citric.html citric
    http://qion.info/s-citric+acid.html citric acid
    http://qion.info/s-cl700.html cl700
    http://qion.info/s-cliff+keen.html cliff keen
    http://qion.info/s-cmd.html cmd
    http://qion.info/s-colby.html colby
    http://qion.info/s-college+transfer.html college transfer
    http://qion.info/s-colored+pencil.html colored pencil
    http://qion.info/s-colortrak.html colortrak
    http://qion.info/s-coming+out.html coming out
    http://qion.info/s-conservationist.html conservationist
    http://qion.info/s-controversy.html controversy
    http://qion.info/s-copy+music+cd.html copy music cd
    http://qion.info/s-cores.html cores
    http://qion.info/s-crawly.html crawly
    http://qion.info/s-cue+tips.html cue tips
    http://qion.info/s-12+days+of+christmas.html 12 days of christmas
    http://qion.info/s-1204.html 1204
    http://qion.info/s-1228.html 1228
    http://qion.info/s-1276.html 1276
    http://qion.info/s-129.html 129
    http://qion.info/s-14+years+old.html 14 years old
    http://qion.info/s-16233.html 16233
    http://qion.info/s-16v.html 16v
    http://qion.info/s-1712.html 1712
    http://qion.info/s-19c.html 19c
    http://qion.info/s-2+years+old.html 2 years old
    http://qion.info/s-2001+dvd.html 2001 dvd
    http://qion.info/s-2022.html 2022
    http://qion.info/s-2212.html 2212
    http://qion.info/s-22re.html 22re
    http://qion.info/s-2nd+grade.html 2nd grade
    http://qion.info/s-341.html 341
    http://qion.info/s-3c16670.html 3c16670
    http://qion.info/s-3d+studio.html 3d studio
    http://qion.info/s-4224.html 4224
    http://qion.info/s-4504.html 4504
    http://qion.info/s-500v.html 500v
    http://qion.info/s-5540.html 5540
    http://qion.info/s-565.html 565

Leave a Reply