Comments on: MPAA triumphs over grandfather

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:59:28 +0000

As bad as it sounds……you can sue and intimmidate a few people but the truth of the matter is there are millions upon millions of people downloading music and movies illegally and it wont stop anytime soon. there are not enough law suits that can replace revenue not to mention pay the fees of a court system battle against a possible consumer who can be led away from these activities with a better business model. Maybe a more reasonable price for cd’s or more effort into legitimate online music stores. The movie industry needs to do the same. $8.00-$12.00 for a movie!!!!!! and throw in the drinks and popcorn!!!!!! $14.00 bucks and up for a cd!!!!!!!!! No wonder people are resorting to getting this stuff illegally!!!!!!!

and also worth a mention most of the stuff released nowadays is garbage not worth the money!!! Come On!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:21:50 +0000

“Horrible Pirate” I like it!

Arrrh! I be horrible as well, Aaaarh!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:25:25 +0000

This is where statutory laws get it wrong. Statutory laws were developed and approved for those “selling and making profit” off copyrighted works. The **AA’s have had to come up with some way to say you are profiting by that download where no money changes hands. No one in the p2ps is selling diddly. As long as they can claim “lost sale” then it continues. At some point, enough of the population will be put under the gun that this will have to be examined.

Also at some point when the cartels come to court with this backlog, they gotta prove they own those copyrights. That they are not so eager to do. That is why you haven’t seen those that so far have refused to settle being called to court. With the “works for hire” clause, the cartels have been claiming that every work they own is a “work for hire”. No artist, no photographer, no grapics artists can do something that isn’t in the clause. If they refuse to sign with the clause, then they won’t get paid. Those artists that have signed those contracts are under the impression that in 35 years they get to renegotiate that claim. But under “works for hire” they can’t. So the cartels are in a damn if they do and damn if they don’t. Once they go to prove the ownership then the “work for hire” comes up. At that point they have an artist strike on their hands to go with everything else.

Sincerely, I hope that comes up with the Patti case. She would be smart to include that demanding of proof with close inspection of the document and not accepting a waving of it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:56:32 +0000

because if everybody thought it was not a big deal to download copyrighted stuff, the only way to drive the point home to all those horrible pirates is to make a few very public and very memorable examples. It’s the only way the average working citizen, or ‘peasant’, will learn to obey the law, no matter how unfair, unbalanced, or idiotic it is.
It’s absolutely not slavery, because they give it a different name.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:46:16 +0000

actually, i’m pretty sure when that happens, the genius that is hollywood combined with the great thinker’s in u.s. politics, will decide to ‘liberate’ the bullocks out of britain.

Comming, this summer…to a theatre near you
…….1776…………..2006……
Revolutionary War II,
The States Strike Back!

….’not since hiroshima and nagasaki have so many people rushed to embrace the american way!’

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:18:35 +0000

So not only can you be silenced by the cartels (Non Disclosure Agreements ie don’t talk and we won’t sue) but now you can be made to become a walking billboard for them as well.

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave huh? The Free and Brave what? Lawyer?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:32:22 +0000

Of course, the MPAA labours under the popular misconception that a film downloaded is a sale lost.

As for Fred Lawrence, I can only asume the $500k is supposed to be a deterrent, but then come on, if you can’t pay $500k in a lifetime, what’s the point in imposing it?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:13:13 +0000

This is nothing more than a perversion of justice.

Even if Fred Lawrence had copied four movie and even if that meant the loss of sales of four movies to the movie company how was the figure of over $500,000 determined? What nut determined this?

Could it be one $ for the 500,000 customers they will loose as a result of their “trimph”?

Clearly MPAA and their lawyers are in the same lunatic fringe that are those running the country.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:51:22 +0000

Yupper; that he did

“War is peace. Peace is war. Slavery is Freedom”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:15:51 +0000

This is just so not right….

Bloke gets accused of something somebody else did, gets forced to pay a sum of money he can’t afford in order not to get sued, gets sued, loses because he can’t afford proper legal representation, and is then forced to “work” for free for those who sued him as part of the award against him.

God bless the United States of America – Land of the free, sons of the brave and the epitome of true democracy……

What utter bollocks.

At least Hollywood is based in California so that when the Big Quake comes, most of it will fall off into the Pacific and sink…. Best bloody place for it if you ask me. Shame we can’t convince all of their politicians and legal system to move there too………

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:50:31 +0000

Orwell knew what he was writing about.
(Rugendas)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:53:33 +0000

“To settle lawsuit, grandfather will speak against film piracy”

This says it all.

Now they are coercing the victims to make speeches in favor of an idea that the speaker does not necessarily believe in.

Inverted free speech: Slavery speech.