Here is my little contribution to the hatred these fucks deserve:
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9596/neilgane.jpg

Anyone interested in telling Mr. Bannon what they think of his recent failure may find this link useful.

Or something.

I’m not actually criticizing you guys, I mean, hey, they probably paid a lot for the ad, and you guys have bills to pay, and it’s just a website ad, and the movie seems pretty cool, and their website is entertaining, so, why not?

But still. MPAA! RIAA! Bad! Bad! Right? Ooh… money! Money good!

So, why can’t we comment on the ad? Apart from the usual whining (see earlier in my post), you’d get a pretty interesting discussion about the legality of reposessing artificial organs (I think it would be highly illegal), or about the commercials during the infomercial (funny sex, and torture violence).

This needs more than judge rulings: it needs legislation to prevent trolls like AFACT from carrying on.

These bastards are like the “Happy Birthday” owners, a bunch of money-sucking parasites, the perfect example of everything that’s wrong with modern copyright laws.

BB crew: I do think it would be interesting if yall gave yer opinion of this REPOMEN flick. It looks cool.

Obama wants the banks to cut the super wages
i suspect someone is billionaire also in the Holliwood business

so i dont think its a matter of cost of production, but more of how many Villas 20000 people (managers actors etc) have in Beverly Hills, with luxury over luxury after luxury

to make a movie it costs ?
to make you rich it costs (to us)

this is what they defend, waving with their hands the ‘copyright’ thing

i do have a Dvd collection, all original movies
but i bought them at low price (i will never, i think, spend much for a NEW movie, ill wait few years)

sell at reasonable prices
the people will pay
the piracy will die

Now I can cross that off my list of stupid technology moves Australia has made or is likely to make.

Classified animations of young popular cartoon characters as child pornography.

Created a giant, expensive, ineffective, easily abused (by those in power), non-transparent mandatory filter on the internet.

Decided ISPs should violate their users privacy and become ‘the internet police’ on behalf of the international entertainment industry. Cross that off the list

Decided an R18+ rating system would somehow make it easier for young children to get a hold of games not suited to them, whilst denying the right of adults to chose which entertainment they consume.

Getting something for free that you should pay for is called stealing.

Ah but the problem with your sentiment is that copying stuff isn’t stealing. Theft happens when you deprive someone of the use of their property without their consent. The studios were not deprived of the use of a movie if it was copied to someone else–they still have the original. If you broke into their computers and copied it, well there is the act of trespassing. If you broke in and physically stole the master copy, then yes that’s theft. But theft of a copy of a copied file? No. Not unless the owner was deprived of its use.

I believe the mantra is, if it can be copied, it will be.

Can this decision be used as a precedent in US cases now?

“The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another”

The Judge also said: “although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well.”.

If you read the full text it really shows the Judge understood the technology and how it works, and generally what was going on.

Oh goody! I get to link to this!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

And quoting a quote:

#4: “You missed the judge’s best quote! I want to print this and frame it.
“The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another”"

Gwahahhahahaha!!!!
The most fun part is that they are gonna pay!

What would be nice is if someone at Comcast wakes up and realizes that by offering to act as copyright cops of their users (all in the name of a right and just cause, of course, when they’re really just trying to cut off bandwidth hogs), they may be inadvertently exposing themselves to litigation. Why? US ISPs have enjoyed freedom from prosecution by saying that it’s infeasible to them to police all their users’ activity. Encrypted transmissions are enough to prove that. If Comcast breaks the status quo by saying that they can in fact police their users, then whose fault is it when some infringement takes place?

It costs a lot to make movies. They are the product of the studio that produces them which has every right to make as much money as it can. Watching films and listening to music is not an entitlement that allows you to decide to pay if you feel like it.

Getting something for free that you should pay for is called stealing. This used to be considered immoral but not so much these days. Uploading a copy to a file-sharing site and making it available to possibly the entire world does not constitute sharing which is a common defence for this behaviour.

None of this legal action would be necessary if individuals would respect the property of others rather than selfishly wanting everything for themselves. There was a later BB post about a comic speculating on the total collapse of civilization. We’re witnessing it.

The court here is recognizing the same sort of relationship – the ISP is not the copyright infringer, nor are they a copyright infringement enabler. Attempting to paint the ISP as culpable in any way is not in the legal interests of copyright holders, any more than MADD (mothers against drunk driving) suing everyone who ever sold gasoline to a guy who then got drunk and ran over grandma would be honestly in persuit of safer streets. It would instead be a blatant attempt to grab money.

Just like this case was.

Whilst not binding on US Courts, it is of pursuaive value to the extent that the US and Australian copyright/ISP laws are comparable.

“AFACT, the Hollywood front organization that brought the case, will have to reimburse iiNet’s AU$4,000,000 legal bill.”

This may not entirely be true. Under Australian costs laws, the usual order for payment of legal costs by the loser is for payment at rates set in the rules of the relevant court. The Court rates are vastly lower than what commercial law firms charge. iiNet will probably only get 60-70% of their actual costs back.

That said, the Court does have the power to order AFACT to pay the whole amount in some special circumstances, but not being aware of the full history of the matter I do not whether this is a possibility or not.

None of this legal action would be necessary if individuals would respect the property of others rather than selfishly wanting everything for themselves.

Yeah, because — as everyone knows — the studios would never stoop to anything as heinous as not respecting another’s intellectual property or resorting to subterfuge to avoid paying a fair price for something they desired.

None of this legal action would be necessary if individuals would respect the property of others rather than selfishly wanting everything for themselves.

Yeah, because — as everyone knows — the studios would never stoop to anything as heinous as not respecting another’s intellectual property or resorting to subterfuge to avoid paying a fair price for something.