Big media essentially bribed congressmen to extend copyright terms (from 50 to 70 years) so they could continue with their monopolies - a copyright extension that should be declared unconstitutional. (Extending the copyright term for an existing work does not promote science and understanding because the work has already been created. The extension should only apply to works that had not yet been created.)

So, if big media can't enforce its copyright, I hardly feel bad. Big media has stolen enough from the American People. Perhaps Liza committed an act of civil disobedience.

delafield

Use peerguardian 2, and read this:
[wiki.phoenixlabs.org]
I got one, its no big deal, just ignore it and maybe stop downloading for a little while.

bobmilkman

i got the letter from comcast in northern NJ. it is all a scare tactic. i just use a different program and proxy servers in china and i still download stuff, just not movies. i rip those from dvd's to avoid another letter.

bobjoey

I got one a couple of years ago from CableOne, HBO was unhappy that I was trying to catch up on a couple of missed Sopranos episodes. Nothing more came out of it, but I suspect that more letters from HBO would end up with my cable internet disconnected.

RoamingBison

once i got a cease and desist letter from my ISP for downloading "Hot Rod". The funny thing is, I was only downloading it because they pulled it out of every theater by my house because it was doing so badly.

The letter just said that I should delete the file and that was it. At least the didn't sue me.

BTW: once the dvd came out i finally watched it. it sucked.

teopak

Rubbish to most of the comments here. It's not stealing, theft or robbery. When you photocopy more than the allowed amount of a book at your local library it's called copyright infringement. That's what downloading is. Information has a tendency (wants) to be free.
The producers of movies, music etc. will try with every means available to stop it being free. They will fail of course. Dont get in the crossfire.

bart08

To about half of these posters, how does it feel up there on your soap boxes, looking down on us internet users.

Sheesh, answer the OPs question, or just lay off.

blitzen

My previous ISP started snooping, throttling and traffic shaping my Internet. I couldn't very well pick up my normal software updates via bittorrent (Ubuntu, for example) and the connection was otherwise craptastic.

So I switched ISPs to a privately owned company that is $15 cheaper, offers higher monthly bandwidth, has great customer service and doesn't alter my connection speed in any way. Win, win and more win.

Ethics aside, these letters are pretty much fluff. Your ISP has no right to send information about what you download to any other company and the worst they can do is cut off your connection (in which they don't get paid and lose business).

Obsidian

I got the same letter from comcast about a month ago, caught you downloading, blah blah blah, don't do it again or service will be canceled, blah blah blah. Like everyone else said, I think its mostly a scare tactic.

Pawnshopheart00

@Jeffrey McManus:

Now that is an ignorant statement...it truly is! I have been using BT technology for several years. I have filled up 2 TB of mostly music, all of which is not "STOLEN". Most of the the media downloaded via BT technology is live performances and legally shared. Several BT sites only allow music to be shared if the bands approve of taping and sharing said music (ex. Grateful Dead, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band to name only 1/100th of the bands).

Back to the main topic of letters re: copyrighted material...I have received two in the past 24 months. One for software...one for a movie. Nothing happened either time.

The technology is GREAT for those who use it properly...as well as for those who do not. The fate ultimately lies in the users hands...

Derrick4Real

ThaABomb: "As someone said earlier, theft is TAKING someone else's property without consent. When you download stuff, you are COPYING someone else's stuff without consent, which is known as copyright infringement, not theft."

Yet there is legal precedent to show you are incorrect. Acquiring protected content is (amongst other things) stealing. Distributing protected content is copyright infringement.

The transfer of a physical item does not need to occur for the act to be labeled theft. That's simply a popular misconception.

ThePlanetMars

As someone said earlier, theft is TAKING someone else's property without consent. When you download stuff, you are COPYING someone else's stuff without consent, which is known as copyright infringement, not theft. If you were to somehow take the RIGHTS to that property, that would be theft. This is why plagiarism is considered theft; not because you are copying someone else's ideas, but because you are copying someone else's ideas without giving them credit for the ideas, and in doing so, are claiming them as your own aka claiming the rights to them.

ThaABomb

It's always funny reading the posts by people who think they're some kind of rebel. Quoting the Matrix? Really?

Damn.

Look, tearing down the current system is fine. But only if you replace it with something viable. Personally, I have four terabytes of downloaded television running through a network so that I can view it on any TV in the house. I paid for none of it. I have 30,000 comic books (accessible through a network drive) that I can read on my tablet PC (perfect dimensions for comics) and I have 60 eBooks packed onto my Sony Clie (nicely pocket sized). That's all just the tip of the iceberg. I have binders full of DVD's storing more and absurd amounts of music. I've been collecting data for a decade. Personally, I haven't paid for anything of this type in years. It's the same for most people I know.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize the potential impact of file sharing. I want there to be material to access in the future. Yes, copyright law, as it is currently designed, is flawed. But the principal behind it is sound. There must be a system in place to encourage the creation of new art. And it's not up to the corporations to figure out how to do this. That's just a cowards way of passing the buck. It's up to us, as a society, to create and support an alternative system that we find tolerable that continues to offer compensation for those producing the content we crave.

At the very least, we can admit that it is what it is. Stealing.

ThePlanetMars

" I know you're out there. I can feel you now.
I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us.
You're afraid of change. I don't know the future.
I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end.
I came here to tell you how it's going to begin.
I'm going to hang up this phone and then
I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see -

I'm going to show them a world without you:
a world without rules or controls; without borders or boundaries -
a world where anything is possible.
Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you."

dasverlangen

nighttimestereo: "So comparing copyright violation and stealing is comparing apples and oranges."

Over 30 years ago, a man was charged by the Supreme Court with the conversion of property. The property in question was intangible media. Music, to be precise.

Contrary to popular belief, acquiring intangible media is theft. You can claim that this is just the repetition of nonsense as much as you like. But such displays of ignorance will not change the facts.

nighttimestereo: "authors believe they have a natural right to decide what happens to their writings and discoveries after they are distributed to the public"

Actually, authors believe they have a legal right in this matter. And guess what? They do.

As for whether or not copyright laws or beneficial or just, there is a legitimate argument buried somewhere deep within the standard rhetoric. Simply pointing to the shifting goalpost that is the expiration date on copyright is sufficient. The original laws allowed for a much shorter period of ownership (the recent legal issues in regards to the ownership of American icon Superman are a good example of corporate copyright abuse).

But just because you disagree with a law does not entitle you to break it.

ThePlanetMars

@holymogwai: The thing that's bad about stealing is that the owner of the thing in question is deprived of its use. If someone steals your car, you can't drive anywhere. If someone steals your lunch, you can't eat it.

When we're talking about information, it's not necessary to deprive one person of a piece of information in order to make it available to others. When a teacher gives a lecture, her students learn but she does not become ignorant. When an uploader sends a file, the downloader gets a copy but the uploader still has the original.

So comparing copyright violation and stealing is comparing apples and oranges.

The thing that people (who have taken the time to consider the issue rather than just repeating **AA nonsense) find objectionable about copyright violation is that, due to laws justified by the following phrase in the constitution, authors believe they have a natural right to decide what happens to their writings and discoveries after they are distributed to the public:

"[Congress shall have the power to] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries [...]"

But note how, unlike the right to free speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, copyright is not described as a "natural" or "God-given" or "human" right. Copyright was just an expedient method to encourage authors to produce useful information. In my opinion, the best criticism of copyright violation is that copyright laws strike a bargain between authors and the public, and a copyright violator is going back on his bargain.

However, from a practical standpoint, copyright is a bad bargain for a number of reasons. For some good information on how copyright hinders creativity in general and young people in particular, google around for Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig's lectures on "Free Culture."

Another practical problem is that copyright and freedom of speech are incompatible in the computer age. Freedom of speech is more important than copyright, so copyright must go. Freenet creator Ian Clarke has written about this conflict at length

nighttimestereo

Wit: "You have to deprive the owner of the possession or control of their property. With copies, you're not depriving the owner of his property - he's still got it, and now so do you."

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. There is clear precedent set in California (in a bootleg music case) that holds that conversion can occur outside of your definition.

Wit: "Also, I'll simplify the question I asked before..."

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. Do you deal with copyright law professionally?

ThePlanetMars

I use uTorrent and PeerGaurdian2 and I've been downloading music and feature length films for about 2 years now with no letters...

another alternative not mentioned is Warez sites...

djxspike

LOL at the guy thinking he's protected by using his company's T1 line to illegally download copyrighted material.

Talk about not only having to deal with the RIAA/MPAA but also getting fired from your job for violating THEIR service agreements and use. I'm sure his company would frown upon using torrent to possibly introduce viruses into the company network/his PC or using the company's bandwidth to infringe on copyright.

David M

The full definition:

The wrongful possession or disposition of another's property as if it were one's own; an act or series of acts of willful interference, without lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's right, whereby that other person is deprived of the use and possession of the chattel.

If the full definition doesn't apply, it's not conversion. I'll try to explain: The focus here is on the effect the action has on the original property owner. You have to deprive the owner of the possession or control of their property. With copies, you're not depriving the owner of his property - he's still got it, and now so do you.

Also, I'll simplify the question I asked before, since you also sidestepped it (and I meant to ask the question I did - I can't be blamed if you don't register nuance): Are you licensed to practice law? Have you attended law school and passed a bar exam? Because, really, this is first year of law school stuff here...

Look, I felt compelled to pipe up because it seems that you've attempted to take control over this discussion and establish your point of view as pre-eminent. And you badger and attack anyone who disagrees. And you're wrong. I'm not really interested in a long debate with an adversary who doesn't have a basic grasp of legal theory or interpretation. It's not worth the frustration. Just think of it more as attempt to say: "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Wit

I just go by the old warez route by using filesharing sites like rapidshare,megaupload,megashares etc.

I don't know how strict ISP's are over here in Ireland though.

For music i use Skreemhr (lifehacker recommended it)

ConorB

Ok unless there is another ISP with the same name, Cablevision is mexican, like me, and in Mexico there isn't one case aganist torrent downloaders.

The federal police only investigates massive producers of pirate materials like movies, music and software.

Cablevision obviusly is doing their part but they will never touch it, maybe they don't know the law in Mexico but is harder and expensive prepairing a lawsuit.

And come on, Cablevision? Really really is the worst ISP in the country, they sucks totally. I know a lot of people don't like he monopoly on Telmex but their service on phone and internet works like a dream, and there's always the alternative of the 3G mobile companies.

All the fault is yours, first for downloading copyrighted material and second for using a crappy ISP.

That's all, don't worry and listen all the advises here, protect your privacy and if u like some product, buy it.

DiegoGarciaMendoza

Wit: "TPM - please look up the Black's Law definition of "convert" as it is featured prominently in the definition you provided. I think you'll find it's determinative. Give you a hint: "...whereby that other person is deprived of the use and possession of the chattel."

Perhaps you should dig a little deeper. I'll give you a hint: "The wrongful possession or disposition of another's property as if it were one's own..."

Wit: "I deal with law professionally. Do you?"

I deal with copyright law professionally. I already made that clear. The fact that you failed to answer a similar question is telling.

Treefingers: "Did i say i was entitled to it?"

That's pretty much how you're acting, yes.

ThePlanetMars

@Othniel:
"And where does this "real artist" get their 50g's if you are illegally downloading? You contradict yourself by claiming "low cost" music is the wave of the future, while you are thieving from the individuals who have worked their tails off doing what they love the most."

I'm not saying that every "real artist" will get 50gs. I'm saying that even if the biggest superstar only made that and everyone else made less, music would still be fine.

Music will always be created whether it's all free or not, without a significant reduction in quality. If you want to make a lot of money at it, be an amazing enough musician that you can tour and sellout tons of venues (Prince isn't complaining about his recent free CD, is he?).

I don't contradict myself at all. If I enjoy the art of hard workers, those hard workers are succeeding in every respect as an artist.

If humanity pulls its act together over the next few centuries, everything will be this way: everyone will do what they love for free, and the rest is left to machines.

BugMeNot

maybe it will help or not, language from the actual law and commentary from copyright.gov

What Is Copyright

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

*

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
*

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
*

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
*

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
*

To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
*

In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

*Note: Sound recordings are defined in the law as "works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work." Common examples include recordings of music, drama, or lectures. A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. The word "phonorecord" includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats.

breed56

TPM - please look up the Black's Law definition of "convert" as it is featured prominently in the definition you provided. I think you'll find it's determinative. Give you a hint: "...whereby that other person is deprived of the use and possession of the chattel."

Isn't that what several people here have been saying all along?

It's an apple, and you can keep calling it an orange as much as you want and browbeat everyone who disagrees with you about it, but it's not going to make it an orange.

I deal with law professionally. Do you?

Wit

Lazy Canadian ISP's FTW!

mattdawg8

@ThePlanetMars:
"Man, if you can't bother to both read and comprehend the content of my posts I really don't see why I should bother taking the time to respond to you. You think just because the copyright holder doesn't cater to your specific whim you should be entitled to take their product without offering compensation? Sorry. No. You are not entitled. Not in the least."

Did i say i was entitled to it? Nope. Did i say i was illegally downloading it? Nope. Did you even read my post? Nope. Either you did read it had no response or didnt ever read it. God you are such a self assuming self righteous sheep. Get out from under your shelter and realize that the corporations can give me exactly what i want at no higher cost than what they are doing now. Does it cost them more money to encode video or music at a higher bitrate? NO! Its not like im asking for some service that they cant provide me. im asking for a service they are already doing that would take no extra work than what they are doing right now. Ive encoded my own videos and it takes the same amount of time to encode at HD as it does SD. The computer does all the work. How hard is that? The only thing i am asking for is they provide this service without crippling it with DRM. Because when i buy something i would like to put it on any device i want any way i want. (i dont need to copy it to do so or put it on multiple devices.) if i want to make it smaller i can and will. i cant get better quality from a low quality product.

Treefingers

First, I wanted to say that it happened to me as well, for a single movie. I was asked to fill a web form, which I did. I said it was the first time and that I wouldn't do it again. (a 80% true statement -- I had 2-3 more movies, and did not download more music/movies). For me, it was a wake-up call, and an opportunity to think about it. Copying movies, music and copyrighted software is stealing. There are sustainable arguments against this statement. The only possible defense is behavioral: it doesn't "feel" like stealing, as it's so easy, and does not deprive the owner of the good. But it is, since it deprives the owner of lost revenue. Update your perceptions, and all will be fine. Very few of us are willing thieves.

Moreover, I feel that the availability of cheap mail and online movie rentals, DRM-free music, and open source software makes stealing even less attractive. Seven years ago, mp3.com made sense, but now, with iTunes, Amazon, and 10 more alternatives???

gappy

I work for an ISP in the UK, we send these c&d letters out pretty regular So far none of the letters have gone any further.
The "companies" monitor the trackers you are using, they just download the file like you - because it's P2P easy to find IPs
Personally - I feel these are a scare tactic - at least at the minute.

BUT actions have their consequences!

mota_boy

Wit: "Also, Websters, although a perfectly cromulent dictionary, is not a legal authority."

Funny how the definitions work out the same when examined in a legal dictionary:

theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use.

property
n. anything that is owned by a person or entity.

Why exactly do we have legal dictionaries if accurate definitions are somehow irrelevant to the law? That's the most absurd logic I have seen forwarded by a supposed lawyer in quite some time.

Again: The illegal distribution of protected materials is copyright infringement. The illegal procurement of protected materials is theft.

ThePlanetMars

i find it very...odd that so many people are saying to delete this stuff. Even if she did delete it, the files would most likely still remain very much on her hdd, which would kind of defeat the point. sure, she would have deelted it, but she would have also definately downloaded it.

jrghoull

Ok I just checked my comcast email...first time in two years...and I had a letter about this subject from March 1st, 2008. They even provided "evidence":

Evidentiary Information:

Notice ID: xxxxxxxxxxx
Recent Infringement Timestamp: 1 Mar 2008 05:57:42 GMT
Infringed Work: Stardust
Infringing FileName: Stardust.2007.SWESUB.DVDRip.XviD-pirat.[Tanka fett]
Infringing FileSize: 1468897332
Protocol: BitTorrent
Infringing URL: [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8080]
Infringers IP Address: xx.xxx.xx.xxx
Infringer's DNS Name: c-xx-xxx-xx-xxx.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringer's User Name:
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 1 Mar 2008 05:57:42 GMT

The thing is...I have NEVER downloaded or looked for Stardust. So I am wondering if they're just blowing smoke.....

dj2xl

joemo: "I enjoy screwing Hollywood. I actually get joy from it."

We all have to have our vices.

ThePlanetMars

I enjoy screwing Hollywood. I actually get joy from it.

joemo

Wit: "Also, 'theft of intellectual property' would involve claiming someone else's intellectual property as your own. Totally different thing."

Did anyone claim otherwise? What the usage of theft in this instance shows is that the concept of stealing is not limited to the transfer of a physical object, as multiple people have mistakenly claimed.

Wit: "Also, Websters, although a perfectly cromulent dictionary, is not a legal authority."

This discussion happens to revolve around the definitions of words in our language. Thus the dictionary is a perfectly valid source. It's already understood that sharing protected material is illegal and it's understood under which laws it is punishable.

Wit: "I do wish those who are blatantly not attorneys would stop defining "theft" and "stealing" and using very bad syllogisms in order to prove that copyright violation = theft."

I deal with copyright law professionally. You?

ThePlanetMars

I got my first letter for downloading the first episode of the last Soprano's season. No action was taken. I got the 2nd for downloading some dumb indie film that turned out to save me from wasting money on total garbage. No action taken - and my ISP who claimed a 3 strikes and you're out policy, had no record of the 1st letter.

Get SafePeer, or PeerGuardian, or one of their substitutes- its not perfect, but its better than nothing. I usually dl only network tv shows, which is a legal gray area anyways, but you never can be too safe.

OrionTheSmiter

I do wish those who are blatantly not attorneys would stop defining "theft" and "stealing" and using very bad syllogisms in order to prove that copyright violation = theft. I know you feel that they're the same thing... and it's perfectly fine to say that you feel like illegal downloading is theft... but from a legal perspective, well, this just bunk. The reasons it is so have been explained many times above and don't really bear repeating. Also, Websters, although a perfectly cromulent dictionary, is not a legal authority.

Also, 'theft of intellectual property' would involve claiming someone else's intellectual property as your own. Totally different thing. There, there IS likely an intent to deprive the original owner of the future use of said intellectual property. Please say you see the difference?

As for the idea of theft of market share... does anyone have a right to market share? Unlikely. They don't own the right to your potential purchase... they own the right to sell something to you. Even if a court said there was such a right, I'm not sure how anyone could prove damages, given that it is speculative and especially if you were the market share in question and given the poor state of the industry. It'd be messy.

Interesting side note - Neil Gaiman recently put one of his books - all 588 pages of it online for free for a month (five days left) as a sort of experiment. He reported that weekly sales of that novel have, in fact, tripled.

[I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I am not offering any legal advice and if you need legal advice you should get your own lawyer.]

Wit

are you using any "protection", if not, then you should...BUT at this point I think it's time to stop downloading for a while....or just change ISPs.
Welcome to the Digital Age...very controversial.

ceez

The ISP isn't watching what you download.

A company that represents the copyright holder started downloaded the same file as you, but then logs all the IPs of the BitTorrent peers.

It then sends a standard letter to the ISP with the IP, Date, and Time. That is how the ISP knows what user to send the notice to.

The copyright holder doesn't even know who you are. The ISP wouldn't give out that information without a court order.

There is absolutely no privacy issue here at all

Tony_B

rustybadger: "Only by stealing a physical copy, do you remove their control over it, thereby engaging in theft."

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. You point to plagiarism to support your interpretation that a physical object must be transferred for theft to occur, but plagiarism is defined as "intellectual theft". Clearly, theft can and does occur in our language without the transfer of a physical object.

rustybadger: "When you download a movie or song over the Internet (or by getting a copy from a friend), you are not depriving the copyright holder of their control."

Actually, that is exactly what you are doing. Control, in this case, only points to ownership. Legally, the copyright holder owns (controls) the rights to their property (even after you have purchased your single copy), and can dictate it's dissemination (with certain exceptions). If you partake of their property without offering the asked for compensation, you have bypassed the measure of control that the copyright holder legally has on their material.

The argument that acquiring protected material illegally is not theft is a popular. But that does not make it correct.

ThePlanetMars

I had a similar situation occur a few years back. I got a letter from COX and they said everything that cable vision is saying. I quickly jumped on the internet and did some research and I found that "technically" its not illegal to download the movies. The illegal part comes in when you share the movies with others be it posting on the internet or sharing them with friends. It doesn't matter if you download them its the sharing part they are worried about. Also I got out of another similar situation by writing my ISP saying that I owned a copy of the movie and lost the dvd and was just trying to get another copy without having to spend money on it meaning that I already payed for the copywrite on that movie.

sultanselephant

My story's a bit unusual. Off the bat - I'll admit that I've been using the wonderful world of BT's for years but obviously that's not the unusual part. Thing is, I've never been sent a notice or warning, ran into any sort of trouble with my ISP at all... until I stopped downloading any large files at all, period.

My desktop fried in the beginning of January. Since the meltdown of my most precious means of internet access I desperated to using my cell phone and Nintendo Wii as my only portals to the 'net (I'm now typing to you from a very well deserved laptop).

After many frustrating weeks of nerfed internet surfing, relegated to only being able to check the usual blogs, some Youtube, social networking and minimal IM'ing provided by the phone - nothing like using the many apps, watching the many movies, playing the many games, etc. etc., on my desktop - , the last straw was nuked.
It stopped working.
Out of nowhere, my service stopped and this time it wasn't my router or modem acting up, no, this time it was really out of my hands and I had no idea why, until my brother came across a little message from Cox [my ISP].

My brother's unknowing attempt to access the 'net made me frighteningly aware of something I didn't even care to consider. After risking my service downloading files through torrents for years I didn't receive citation 'til I stopped. Oh! the irony slapped me with a warning for termination of service.

As others have said, Cox is relatively lenient in their aspect of internet/rich media policing. I called as directed and was told, basically, three strikes and I'm out. After explaining my situation and how it's pretty much impossible for me to've downloaded 'The Eye', let alone store it, they, nor I, had many ideas as to how this happened.
I assured him my wireless connection was secure, WEP encrypted with a key longer than the U.S deficit. I knew someone savvy enough could still crack in and leech off my service but I figured a hacker with l334 status such as that would find a better way to perform his/her deeds. So it couldn't  be that right?

After about a week, receiving two more notices (eek) and not really knowing where to turn, I finally commited my ego to the embarassing asylum of imperfection. I realized I didn't even know my connection was still secure. Lo and behold, I have a friend come over with her laptop and was able to log into my router with the default password... I felt pretty dumb.
I Guess it somehow got reset; I found out later that Linksys routers revert to factory settings if left un-plugged for sometime.

Since my house was acting as a liberal Wi-Fi hotspot for the mass of mobile internet users in my vicinity for a couple of months, I guess they learned how to download unremarkable movies too...

P.S: Jessica Alba's still hot

Wardez

And I should point out to "ThePlanetMars" that while the points of your argument are correct, your conclusion is fallacious. When you download a movie or song over the Internet (or by getting a copy from a friend), you are not depriving the copyright holder of their control. Only by stealing a physical copy, do you remove their control over it, thereby engaging in theft. This is why copyright law was developed, because it became apparent that people's work (writing, art, music, etc.) could be duplicated and passed off as the work of another (plagarism), or duplicated and sold for profit without the originator's permission, or even duplicated and given away for free. Property theft laws and concepts simply cannot apply to so-called "intellectual property", as much as RIAA and the MPAA would like us to believe otherwise.

Your statement "Duplicating and distributing, either for free or for profit, is copyright violation" is correct; your earlier statement "The transfer of a physical item is not required for theft to occur" is wrong. Fortunately for the most part, the courts still recognise that fact and proceed accordingly, but it seems that the studios and labels are indeed reaching the minds of the gullible, as you have demonstrated.

rustybadger

buy the content, and you'll never have a problem

BlkCav

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has been said.

I handle the DMCA alerts for a Big 10 University.

The US networks ARE sending out notices for broadcast TV. Heroes, Battlestar, Lost, I've seen notices for them all (in the process of doing my job, not downloading said shows). NBC/Universal is particularly active in pursuing downloaders.

People are getting sued, people are losing a lot of money for doing this.

See "Minnesota Woman Must Pay Recording Companies $222K In Music Download Suit" at [www.huffingtonpost.com]
(granted, this is in the appeals process).

I hate the AAs, and I'm waiting for someone to come up with a solution to this problem, they'll be the next Bill Gates. But until then, realize that there are very real consequences for this activity.

allochthon

BitTorrent does NOT equal stealing! For all you mental midgets out there who claim it is, get a cup of caffeinated coffee and wake up! BitTorrent is a delivery mechanism, just like the Post Office. You can certainly use it to transport stolen goods, but you can't claim that anyone using the protocol is automatically a thief. For example, I am at this very moment seeding a copy of CBC's "Canada's Next Great Prime Minister", as well as several flavours of Linux and some other Open Source applications. This is not stealing, nor is it illegal. So you can all STFU about "stealing".

As a number of other commentors have pointed out, sharing copyrighted files without permission is indeed illegal (and morally wrong, even), but it's not legally stealing. It's copyright infringement, and is covered under a different set of rules than theft. I can't say for certain how it works in the States, but here in Canada, it is perfectly legal to download things like music; it's the uploading that's illegal. So if you're grabbing copyrighted materials, use a program like Limewire rather than a BitTorrent client- that way you can avoid sharing the files out once you've downloaded them. A bit slower, perhaps, but it works. And if your "shared directory" only contains random text files (as does mine) anyone browsing your machine for shared files won't find incriminating stuff. If you have to use BitTorrent, use it sparingly- get on, get your stuff, and get off. Delete the trackers and torrents when you're done, and move the files you downloaded to another directory. Sure, the "community" doesn't like it when you leech, but if they have the luxury of living outside the US (thereby avoiding prosecution for sharing), they can suck it up. I include myself in that, of course.

The record labels and the studios are only going to go after people they can "prove" were sharing lots of files- if you have one lousy flick you were seeding out for a day or two, you're not at much risk of more than a nasty letter. Do like has been suggested and "delete" the files, notify your ISP by phone that you've unistalled your BT client, and move on. If you're paranoid because you had the entire Star Wars Saga seeding for a month at full speed, you might want to buy a new hard drive and have your operating system reinstalled- and toss out the old drive, preferably after shredding it!

rustybadger

I have a confession to make. I'm a librarian. I have organized meetings on copyright for other librarians and learned about intellectual property. AND I LOVE TORRENTS. There! I feel better. I make no excuses, and I refuse to justify my behavior. I know it's wrong, and I simply...don't care. What's worse is that I ride someone else's wireless in my condo complex, so even if there's a letter sent by my cable company (Time Warner), it would go to them. Which is pretty crappy, but reading all of these posts hasn't really scared me. In fact, I just took notes on how to encrypt in uTorrent and possibly use WinMX for music. Sorry! Torrent downloading/uploading is pretty much my one true vice. I just love it. I'm downloading [older TV show series name redacted] as we speak!

But here's the thing (I think this is where I sorta justify my behavior--I'm a hypocrite!): as for the stuff I download, about 90% of it I wouldn't buy if I couldn't download it. I don't have the money for it. If it wasn't available via torrent, I just wouldn't watch/listen to it (and the fact I can is just a huge bonus to me). So I don't feel people are losing money off me. Stuff I really, really want, I buy off iTunes. And I support the artists I love in ways they'll actually make money, like go to concerts (sometimes repeatedly!). Sometimes a free torrent turns me on to a group that I'll spend money on via merch or concerts, or a show that I'll buy the DVDs for. Movies...no, they really don't make any money off me. Sorry, MPAA! But perfect example--downloaded the entire first season of Friday Night Lights, and loved it so much I bought the series from Target and loaned it to everyone whose hands I can stick it into. Same thing with Showtime's Dexter.

As for Netflix, I was a huge netflix user, and watched WAY too many movies/shows per month so I could "get my money's worth" (I think the fact I'm pretty cheap is coming through loudly in this comment). Torrents force me to really ask if it's worth the time and hassle to download an entire series so it modulates my tv watching. Who knew--torrents PREVENTING the illegal downloading of something!

I use private trackers mostly and I'll look into Usenet. I've yet to have a virus and most everything I get is good quality. If I get caught (or if my upstairs neighbor does, yikes!), I'll take my lumps. I just figure it'll be someone else who gets busted for Season 1 of HBO's Deadwood than me downloading the obscure BBC series "State of Play." Which is really good. Not that I would know. Because I haven't downloaded it. That would be wrong.

Flame away!

mshester

I've gotten hit twice,once for downloading The Rosetta Stone (last year) and then again, more recently for Patapon (2 weeks ago) on the PSP. All I got was an e-mail from Comcast saying I was downloading stuff via bittorrent on this IP. Nothing has arisen from either "warning".

thammuz

Tylas: "Stealing pertains to a tangible item that cannot be replaced without loss of time and money."

Nope. Sorry. That's one of the great myths of the internet. The transfer of a physical item is not required for theft to occur.

Stealing is defined as taking the property of another without permission or right.

Property is defined as something a person owns.

Ownership is defined as having control over.

The holder of a copyright has legal control over their intellectual property. To take this property without permission or right, is stealing.

Duplicating and distributing, either for free or for profit, is copyright violation.

ThePlanetMars

It looks like people are pretty much passionate one side or the other so nothing here is going to help anyone. The original post was just a mistake that wasn't mentioned properly in the bittorrent post and they got caught. Big deal, they won't do anything.

Bittorrent, stealing or copyright infringement. Stealing pertains to a tangible item that cannot be replaced without loss of time and money. Copyright infringement pertains to intangible items like ideas and information where potential sales are cut. Stealing is stealing, but it is not copying information. That is copyright infringement as in, "only the owner has the right to copy".

Both are illegal, but get when you make falsified claims it ruins your character and reputation.

But hey, I'm comment 360, so no one will read it anyway!

- T

Tylas

Encrypt your Bittorent traffic then tell them to go pound sand up their asses. I'd also talk to a lawyer about privacy issues that have been violated here. The fact that you're "renting" the internet connection does not give them the right to monitor what you send and receive without notification that they are doing so. Your landlord can't just go into your apartment and have a look around whenever the mood strikes him now can he? Then again, I'm in Canada and can download until my head explodes. The Goverment already told the RI/MPAA to pound sand for me.

YouCanEatMe

PeerGuardian is a joke. You know how easy it is to get around a blocked IP when your IP is blocked? You think the big companies out there don't know how to?...

Bobly

If you shoplift a DVD the store no longer has the DVD to sell. If someone steals my TV, I no longer have a TV. If you download a pirated movie, the studio still has its product to sell. Losing market share (in that the person will not buy a movie they downloaded) is not theft. It is copyright infringement and possibly some new crime for the digital age. If you argue that copying a CD is theft, you are shilling for organized crime (the multinational corporations overcharging the populace for digital mind control. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

intellectualcrank

Jonathan Lethem provided the first truly cogent argument I've ever read about why copyright infringement and theft are different, and how corporations' copyright policies are motivated more by avarice than any honorable desire to protect intellectual property.

Those self-righteous among you who are unable or unwilling to develop a nuanced enough mentality to see the distinction, and are using this forum to dogpile on Liza, would do well to read Lethem's Harper's piece ... though I won't hold my breath.

"At the movies, my entertainment is sometimes lately preceded by a dire trailer, produced by the lobbying group called the Motion Picture Association of America, in which the purchasing of a bootleg copy of a Hollywood film is compared to the theft of a car or a handbag—and, as the bullying supertitles remind us, 'You wouldn't steal a handbag!' This conflation forms an incitement to quit thinking. If I were to tell you that pirating DVDs or downloading music is in no way different from loaning a friend a book, my own arguments would be as ethically bankrupt as the MPAA's. The truth lies somewhere in the vast gray area between these two overstated positions. For a car or a handbag, once stolen, no longer is available to its owner, while the appropriation of an article of 'intellectual property' leaves the original untouched. As Jefferson wrote, 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'"

Shippy

Well... this has been interesting.

Here's what happened to me: I got a page that materialized on my iPhone (not my PC)--while connected to my home (yes, unsecured) wireless network--that my ISP had detected possible filesharing. The page noted that it might be someone using my network, and basically advised me of the risks. I have no idea why it didn't show up on any other PC in the house.

For the record, I did not download anything that that I couldn't otherwise get from Blockbuster or Netflix or Amazon--it was missed TV shows (guess what--New Adventures of Old Christine isn't available on cbs.com!) or UK shows that aren't televised here or released in US-compatible DVDs.

Needless to say, I'll take a break.

adb

Why I might be tempted to use BitTorrent:
- In some countries we already pay a MPAA/RIAA levy on any blank media we buy!
- DRM, media regions and other such crap can be seen as ridiculous and invasive, forcing buyers to use a product they owe in very restricted way and in some cases rendering purchased media useless
- being forced to watch commercials that can't be skipped on the 'legally' rented DVD makes BitTorrent very attractive option
- snooping internet traffic is perhaps more unethical than copyright infringing
- suing someone into bankruptcy is even more unethical
- scare tactics sometimes just rebel people
- breaking questionable 'laws' passed by corrupt politicians perhaps make one a criminal, but it's also criminal how those laws are passed
- to be safer one could use Usenet but usually it's a paid service and why pay someone for distributing materials they infringe upon

Downloading copyrighted stuff could be a manifestation on how you're being treated in the first place!

btfan

How about companies make available their on-air programs on torrents WITH commercials on it? it's the same idea as DVRs (and VHS recorders of yesteryear) - you get the choice of skipping the commercials if you want to. Or how about legalizing uploads with commercials in them? Or if they want to be scrooges, they could simply put the advertisements in (annoying) superimposed product logos.

I mostly use torrents to download shows 1) I planned on watching but missed, 2) that are old but only recently found out to be entertaining, or 3) that have one story arc that's better to watch in one sitting rather than waiting weeks for the story to finish.

vicestacio

*STOP USING PUBLIC TRACKERS*

Many of the items on these are simply honey pots to collect ip addressess to send out form letters. Unless you receive multiple letters, likely nothing will happen.

If you use a private tracker, you will not receive any letters because your isp is not required to police itself.

Daniel-Bham

The "just join Netflix" comments are annoying and unhelpful.

I have a Netflix account. It's great. However, it doesn't get me last night's episode of [whatever] when my stupid TimeWarner SA 8300HD DVR decides not to record (again).

vliam

Bands are in the business of manufacturing CD cases and printing little booklets and transporting goods to shops and working in the shops that sell the CDs as well.
Aren't they?

Or do bands just make music and the CD is just another in a long line of formats and mediums. Like Vinyl, tapes and yes, MP3s.

It's the content you're stealing.

YES! STEALING! no two ways.

NotPop

@HeartBurnKid:
your "difference in a nutshell" is great!
Clears the issue right up, thankyou.

While I'm at it, can you just pull out your stick and knife and knock me up an 'exact copy' that is 'perfect in every detail' of "there will be blood" , oh, and the latest version of the Adobe suite while your at it.

Fool.

NotPop

This is quite easy; stay away from any and all peer to peer applications. It baffles me as to why people still use software like torrents to download files. These things are easy to monitor and track by the MPAA, RIAA, and so on. There are safer ways to find and download files without using any p2p applications.

Epsilonblue

All this bickering about whether downloading movies and music is theft or not is boring.

There is a very simple ethical test that I use to figure out the right way to behave in most situations:

What would happen if everyone did it?

If everyone downloaded movies and music without paying for them then no one would be paying for them and if not one is paying for them then the media companies are going to stop making movies and music.

If you want to contribute to the death of professionally produced movies, then go for it. Just don't complain when the last studio goes out of business and the only thing left to watch is YouTube clips.

AndyFromTucson

Liza wrote "…but we all know what uTorrent and these types of programs are being used for."

It's this kind of attitude that makes the average non-techie fearful of installing a BitTorrent client in the first place. If the general impression is that all they are good for is illegal downloads, the public is going to continue to turn a blind eye to prosecutors going after people who use these programs, and ISPs' decisions to throttle torrent bandwidth. While it IS the case that some people use the programs for this kind of behavior, it's best to explain to people that this kind of behavior is WRONG and be aware that it can end up with Liza's situation or worse.

With that said, I wish Liza the best of luck and hope it doesn't come to any kind of trouble for her. I got "caught" running an FTP server w/ mp3s on Oth.net about 6 years ago, but luckily got off with just the warning. That was my wake-up call to avoid behaviors that would lead to prosecution - and I still use BitTorrent for legal downloads, but I'll stay away from things that might get me in hot water nowadays, thank you very much.

rossruns

@umpitygrumpity: Umpity is right...Look up CALEA. or the CALEA act.

There were provisions made to allow access to VOIP traffic....That in itself is a slippery slope since VOIP traffic intermingles well with just plain data..

sereth

@paqman: That is one way to look at it but the thing is...your picture / copy or whatever you do to 'replicate' the work is not worth as much as the original. In the case of movie/music the 'copy' is identical and worth just as much as the original product.

Heartburn kid: I understand the difference..I understand the law that you keep citing but it will never ever change my OPINION that what you are doing is stealing. You can argue your point to death but doesn't matter , it's illegal and doesn't make it right. I respect what you are saying but morally and ethically I just don't see that hiding behind a faulty law or lack there of makes it ok.

@mrosedal : Well I guess I got you up in arms..I am a self 'proclaimed' musician. I don't think anywhere I claimed to be an expert but let me clarify. I work for a large university and sit on the front line of the very battle that is currently being faught between users and the RIAA. Everyday I see subpeona's arrive and get delivered to students for 'copyright' infingement. I have many friends who are musicians and see the struggle they have now adays trying to figure out what is the best way to get themselves heard while also trying to get compensated for their work. These are tough and weird times for musicians. Also- as an IT person I know P2P has many many legitimate uses. We use it for getting ISO of linux distro's and hell I use it for my World of Warcraft updates... Ok I'm not an 'expert' at either Law or Bittorrent but I'm not some hermit musician who goes around spouting off about stuff I don't know.

sereth

HAHA Good, I am glad that things are getting tighter for all the cyber-thieves out there. Better hope the Feds dont come-a-knockin. If you want free movies or music, it's called Columbia House or BMG. And for all you people that are saying "whew" nothing ever happened, the Feds have a lot of people to catch up with. Maybe no jail time, but a it will set you back a few grand in fines. LMAO

drac77

@meddigo: don't belittle yourself matey, I read it ;)

prupert

If they are having a go at you, claim its a Ben Affleck movie, and they will not pursue you any further,

1 They wont believe you like Ben Affleck
2 They know you can prove insanity at a subsequent trial.

In sincerity in the UK they now spy on computer accounts that use torrents and now prosecute. George Orwell must be up there saying I told you so.

rockhoppermedia

The only help I can offer is, as mentioned several times above, to "delete" the offending material. You can get help on how to "delete" movies at a recent LH post: [lifehacker.com]

bmearns

@BugMeNot: Very good point...
In one state there's a legal hunting season on attorneys....and it's still on the books!!

so much for the great mortality of the law eh??

proud_blackfoot

I would personally recommend onion servers as your downstream will have to pass through several layers, each one being unaware of the others.

Possibly, a virtual OS might help IF you can find one that'll let u install your torrent client.

I've been using Limewire for a while now and haven't received any letters...

proud_blackfoot

@the_Sleepwalker: You have a "basic right to privacy" on your own private property. And while leasing access from your ISP does, in a sense, make your Internet connection "yours", it isn't a private connection--it's a public connection. Unless you encrypt your traffic (VPN, SSL, whatever), then almost nothing you do with it can be considered private. Your ISP tracks certain elements of your activity no matter what you're doing or how you're doing it. The Internet is, by its nature, public; so is your Internet connection. Lastly, even if you are on "private property", that doesn't give you the right to break the law--good laws, bad laws, and everything in between. Copyright laws may be screwy beyond all reason, but the creators of content do have the right to determine how their content is distributed (while the copyright exists); if they make it free, then fine; if they don't, then downloading/uploading is illegal. Don't like it? Get the laws changed. I mean, really... would you want people coming into your house and just taking anything they want to, without regard to it being "yours"? Hmmm?

GlennA

I don't imagine many people will read this far down, but anyways...

I have to agree that using BT to download films, albums, etc is NOT stealing. Simply because, and this is at least true in the UK, if you consider downloading stealing then recording the TV is also stealing. You are copying from one media to another a copyrighted material. However, according to UK law if you download copyrighted material you are not breaking the law. It's the uploader that is at fault, not the downloader. I've just covered this on my IT course at Uni last year.

I really don't see why people have such a big thing against people using torrents. My mother is as straight as they come yet even she doesn't care that I do it. At the end o