MPAA Sues 200 File Sharing Taxpayers!!

By Wind(up)bird November 17, 2004 6:40 AM

MPAA Sues 200 File Sharing Taxpayers!! You may have heard. Weeks ago the Motion Pictures Association of America threatened to sue downloaders. ?Now they have. ?Those 10, 20, and 50 million dollar weekends 3 to four times a month, those billion-dollar years must not make up for the few flicks bootleged online. ?Rich fucks.

Read Wired Magazines Article...

Tweet This Now!

| comments: 29

Reader Discussions:

Post YOUR opinion too!

come on reply

Posted by sodaboy (contactbm@excite.com) on November 17, 2004 1:20 PM

Get over yourself. taking something without paying for it is stealing. No way around it.

RE: come on reply

Posted by Loath (loath@dtheatre.com) on November 17, 2004 1:34 PM

The civil lawsuits ask for damages. Individuals may be liable for up to $150,000 per film traded on the net.

They're the ones stealing.

RE: come on reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 17, 2004 5:51 PM

The average american consumer is getting ripped off: 1. Movie theatre ticket prices, concession -food & drink. 2. What is the average price of a box office hit DVD? It's an outrage. Not to mention the prices of quality music CD's. What do you expect outraged americans to do? Of course outraged americans will find a way to get their movies &/or music *cheaper*. How much do you spend when you go to your local movie theatre complex? How much are you paying for music CD's at your local big box electronic/media store?

. reply

Posted by sodaboy (contactbm@excite.com) on November 18, 2004 12:12 PM

I pay $5 for matinee, about $5 for a soda and popcorn, usually a movie a weekend. I usually pay about $10-$12 for CD's, and I'm glad to do it. I appreciate what the work people put into this stuff. They should be rewared for that work they do. I'm not rich; I make less than $25K a year, but If can't afford something I don't simply take it. What if people found a way to get the products or services provided by the company where you work, for free.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. If your posting here you have internet access. Don't want to pay for a ticket or DVD, rent the movie. The netflix value can't be beat. Won't pay for a CD to get the song you like, buy the song from itunes or MSN music. It'll be a buck, one buck.

RE: . reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 18, 2004 12:59 PM

I agree with you about 99.9% I also agree that the average consumer needs to pay ALOT less though.

RE: . reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2004 4:31 AM

What's the difference between someone uploading their CD collection onto a website for people to download and someone lending their CD collection to a friend to copy?

RE: . reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2004 4:57 AM

there is a difference between getting something for cheaper, and not paying for it. It is wrong, but some still do it. I am one of them. I can justify it all I want, but like it or not, its still wrong. I just hope that these companies get the hint that some people aren't doing it because they can get it for free, but that we're doing it to show that the prices are too high.

RE: . reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 19, 2004 2:43 PM

Let's get down to the very core of the whole problem. We peel the layers upon layers of what the real problem is. This problem is CORPORATE GREED!!! DIVISION causes DISORDER my friends. There are the HAVES & the HAVE NOTS. The HAVES want the HAVE NOTS to HAVE LESS, while the HAVES want to HAVE MORE. This is an AGE of DELUSION. We have so much more to advance as human beings.

MPAA & RIAA Price Gouging reply

Posted by CompuStrat (compustrat@yahoo.com) on November 19, 2004 4:44 PM

The truth of the matter is...that everyone is right. Society calls theivery wrong...but, I think the real issue here is one of the 'definition of thievery'. Remember, just because there's no law calling what 'they' do theivery (i.e. price gouging for the purpose of making $1 Billion, off of a $100 million investment...and that's just boxoffice sales, not merchandising, etc), doesn't suddenly make it right.

Is stealing wrong? Yes.

But, seriously, if you lost your job and needed to eat...would you steal food? Or would you nobly starve to death? No...not the same thing. However, you could argue that food should have no markup...or possibly be government subsidised to grow and feed us all.

I'm not 'calling anyone out', as it were. I'm just trying to [find if there is any] implied understanding of the other points being conveyed. Instead, all i read here (negatives anyway) is a voice from the pulpit calling this unequivocally wrong...without any temperment.

I make >$50K per year...and I agree with everyone else. However, I don't steal movies. This is the point of the discussion...not someone telling everyone else their wrong because their stated moral principles differ from those with a different definition of integrity and honesty.

By your example...we should have just let King George tax the crap out of the colonies...because it was the law! Instead, we 'stole' the tea...and dumped it into Boston Harbor.

This is how things change. Not by admonishment from those who seem to enjoy docilely walking the 'dirt road'. This type of reticence leads to inflation and exploitation of the working class!

Best to all! Happy Thanksgiving...and Happy Holidays!

Oops... reply

Posted by CompuStrat (compustrat@yahoo.com) on November 19, 2004 4:47 PM

My comments were more specifically in response to Sodaboy. No offense sodaboy...i just wanted to clear up which post to which I was replying.

:)

RE: Oops... reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 20, 2004 9:13 AM

These big companies are all full of greedy fat cats who can't stand to see people saving a bit of money.

Direoswald reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 21, 2004 5:50 AM

This is the link to the batman begins forum where the NZ loser guy direoswald finally said he would quit coming to dtheatre cos he was mocked so badly.

RE: Direoswald reply

Posted by i don t know (direoswald@hotmail.com) on November 22, 2004 4:44 AM

dats wat u tink nerd!

RE: MPAA & RIAA Price Gouging reply

Posted by sodaboy (contactbm@excite.com) on November 22, 2004 12:54 PM

I agree that cd's and dvd's cost to much, but because of rentals and legal song downloads that isn't a problen anymore is it? I wasn't trying to sound morally superior, but aren't there standards? Nobody will die if they can't get the "Jay-Z vs. Linkin Park" bootleg; and I'm not sure I would compare stealing Spiderman to our nation's battle for independence. Since you bring up our nations history, we decided long ago that capitolism was the most perfect system. That means companies that make popular products will make alot of money. If you tried your hardest to make a company successful wouldn't you like your efforts to be shown in that "bottom line"? These studios have alot of revenue, but not much profit. It seems like every five years one is going under. $300 million in box office sales don't mean much when the film cost $150 million to make and $70 million to market.
As for CD's, the percentage of millionare artists is quite small. Most are slugging it out for months on tour just trying to break even, selling a few thousand Cd's a month. When Eminem loses out on couple hundred-thousand sales he doesn't lose a big percentage, but when the other guys lose several hundred sales it matters alot. If others out there buy into this class-war mentallity, wouldn't these bands be on our side?

RE: MPAA & RIAA Price Gouging reply

Posted by Loath (loath@dtheatre.com) on November 22, 2004 4:47 PM

God forbid an artist actually has to put on a show or something to make an income. It's much better for them to sit back and watch their work copied again and again and overpriced.

If you're good enough to worry about people downloading your music, you're good enough to get paid for being there in person.

Do you really think it's all the small artists that are complaining about the downloads? The majority of the music downloaded isn't from the guy who quit his job to start a band. No, it's the greedy millionaire artists and recording companies who are worried about losing a small portion of their vast fortune.

People won't stop buying CDs and other media, and I highly doubt file sharing is going to bring the industry down.

I am not opposed to people getting paid for their work, but major corporations suing people who download sequences of sounds is a concept we shouldn't have to deal with.

RE: MPAA & RIAA Price Gouging reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 23, 2004 3:30 AM

Most people starting out in a band actually want people to download their stuff for free so the can get well know.

Its atricky issue reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2004 3:28 AM

Its a tricky issue because personally I both down load songs (never movies, I would would mutch rather pay for the higher quality picture at the cinema or dvd rental) and buy CD's. The songs I download are the ones I wouldn't normally buy say one off one hit wonders is that still stealing? The music Industry wouldn't have got my money anyway.

And when it comes to stealing it gets into a fine line between the state law and morality. If you were starving law says stealing to feed yourself is still wrong but morality says it is ok.

Stealing from rich people isn't right but when you consider that your not hurting the ARTISTS who make their money from tours and gigs not CD'S then it becomes more tricky. I remember the kinks song Money Roundabout (or something like that) had a line critising the music companies executives "do they all deserve money for a song they never heard don't know the words don't know the tune
But they don't give a damn".

I think consumers are correcting an economic distortion causeed by a highly inelastic demand in the music industry. Basically downloading will make music cheaper in the long run it won't destroy the industry beacause there will always be music and good musicians. It will probably lead to either lower wages for the artists (unlikley) or a monoploly with one maybe two large music labels controlling everything but accepting downloadoing.

Essebntially downloading is a form of competition which will make the music industry more effecient. It will reduce the number of artists but remember it will be the SHIT artists that go first.

The final point is that when I have gone to a website to down load music and pay ffor it the music quality is always much worse I din't know why is that a common problem or just a coincedence?

RE: Its atricky issue reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2004 5:11 AM

I've found that too, it's probably done on purpose because they want people to go back to buying CD's form shops for extortionate prices.

yo yall reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 30, 2004 8:41 PM

ur all retarded so go eat some pig skin and get some lives, durk a durrr!!

RE: yo yall reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 1, 2004 4:59 AM

Are you even making a point?

Downloading misic is a form of Oliposony, whereby the consumers set the price.

Oligopsony reply

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on December 1, 2004 11:11 AM

By misic I assume you mean music and by oliposony I assume you mean oligopsony?

Regardless, the music industry is closer to a monopoly than a oligopoly.

RE: Oligopsony reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 2, 2004 3:13 AM

I did mean music and Oligopsony. The music industry closer to an oligopoly as it has more than one firm and also has the characteristcs of an oligopoly.
Down loading music or movies will lower the price and probably create more independant arists (and possibly films) not so reliant on the big studios.

RE: Oligopsony reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 4, 2004 2:18 PM

I always win at Monopoly.

RE: Oligopsony reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 5, 2004 3:21 AM

really

RE: Oligopsony reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 6, 2004 4:18 AM

Yes.

RE: Oligopsony reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 6, 2004 6:14 AM

cool.