Like encorez the only time I buy a cd is at a concert. I havent stepped foot in a record store in about 15 years. The last CD I bought at a store was when Circuit City went out of business, I bought a nice pile. ANd there is no way I would pay for songs or allbums from iTunes or Amazon. I just try not to buy something that is not a physical item I can touch.
Acidbaby (rep: 6.8k) posted Jun 27, 2012
We have a pretty big one locally that has some great prices but other than that its just the mall stores.
But hey Ill be honest. Ive spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on music in my lifetime. My collection is about 5000 strong and all being LP's and CD's with a few 9Tracks and reel to reel recordings in there. But ive just been leeching for the last 10 years or so. I know its not right, I dont think Im entitled to do so because ive spent so much money in the past. Its just what it is. I used to buy and rip my own music but I guess it all just boils down to the lack of time and the fact that its so easy to just download them.
Acidbaby (rep: 6.8k) posted Jun 27, 2012
In light of lawsuits such as Capitol v. Thomas, where a file sharer was fined as much as $80,000 per song, I don't see how anyone can think it makes sense to save a few bucks by downloading music and movies illegally. What you saved probably wouldn't pay for the first sit-down with the lawyer you'd need if you became the target of a lawsuit. I'm no fan of the RIAA or the MPAA and their tactics, but risking fines from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for a few bucks worth of music is just plain nuts.
fluffy (rep: 2.2k) posted Jun 27, 2012
No fluffy. No one in the history of the internet has ever been charged or sued for downloading period. Whether you want to call it copyright infringement or whatever else, its never happened.
And encorez I know youve stated before that youve been involved in warez and such in the past. You know that really isnt a good piece of advice to give to just lower your upload speed, especially with torrents where it doesnt really matter what your speed is, if your seeding your open to be nailed. But youre right to a point its just that saying something like that could give someone a false sense of security when they really have none. Otherwise I agree, dont share!
@Acidbaby: Since it only takes exactly one example to disprove your statement - no one in the history of the internet has ever been charged or sued for downloading period - here is just one example:
The Tennebaum case has been going on for years. He was originally charged with distribution of thousands of songs over Kazaa.
I'm not trying to be argumentitive. Its just the truth. Nobody has ever been charged for simply downloading. I've been there myself with the cease and desist letters from the RIAA all they do is demand you remove the files and that's that. It's all about sharing as was it with the Tennebaum case.
Here's another one. articles.cnn.com/2009-06-18/justice/minnesota.music.download.fine_1_jury-instructions-fined-sheryl-crow?_s=PM:CRIME she was sued because she was sharing music, not for only downloading. Every single case out there will say so and so was charged with illegally downloading music. But the facts are they were using networks such as Kazaa, frostwire, limewire etc and sharing their libraries.
I'm not even sure you understand the point I'm trying to make or not. With that being that sharing is what gets people sued, not simply downloading 2 dozen songs.
I've received 5 letters from the RIAA and MPAA in the past. Each and every one was from one of my kids friends on my network with their own pc's sharing files over garbage p2p networks like frostwire or torrents. And once because I left my router unsecured and a neighbor hopped only wireless and did the same.
OK, Acidbaby, the RIAA & MPAA generally do target those who are sharing their media, but ultimately those sued DO get charged for the copyright infringement resulting from their downloading. Also practically all p2p file sharing software/networks default to sharing one's files or require sharing to get anything in return, and p2p is how most people illegally acquire entertainment media. If you are not using p2p, there is probably significantly less chance of being caught and prosecuted, but that chance is not zero. I'm having a really hard time believing that the RIAA would just send you letter after letter effectively saying "please delete the infringing files and have a nice day". That doesn't sound like the way they work.
You're right that these high-profile cases have dragged on for years, but the charges and fines are sticking, and they are now just down to arguing the constitutionality of the draconian fines being levied. I bet that the defendants are still going to end up paying at least a few orders of magnitude more than those songs would have cost them, or they might have to declare bankruptcy, which is no walk in the park either.
I'm glad that the courts have effectively put an end to the mass John Doe lawsuits, and that the legality of the preposterous fines is being questioned, but I don't believe that the meager value obtained from illegal downloading will ever be worth risk.
fluffy (rep: 2.2k) posted Jun 29, 2012
If I can dig up the letters I will gladly show you one. The most recent, was for 2 movies. They send you the file hash, date of infringement, etc etc and tell you to delete the files, simple as that. Your ISP however may have a different opinion as I have also had my ISP cancel my services for it.
The only file sharing program that I know of (and ive been involved in running everything from xdcc bots to FTP dumps and everything in between) that defaults to sharing your files is bit torrent.
As far as P2P yes its risky, no they wont come after you for just downloading music not generally wont target you. And really p2p is a waste of time and if someone does get busted for whatever reason and they are using a gnutella client or bit torrent then they deserve everything coming to them for being stupid and using such garbage programs to obtain copyrighted material.
Are these letters from your ISP at the time, or actually from the RIAA/MPAA? A co-worker of mine received a letter from his ISP several years ago after he downloaded just one crappy movie. The letter was to tell him that the MPAA was demanding to know the identity of the account holder, and that the ISP had to comply. Nothing came of it other than he was on edge over it for a good while. That didn't mean that the MPAA couldn't have gone after him if they wanted to. There is no way I would risk financial ruin and loss of peace of mind over a few bucks worth of media. No matter how small the risk of getting prosecuted is, it's not zero.
fluffy (rep: 2.2k) posted Jun 29, 2012
Listen, the act of downloading is not why people get letters or sued. Yes its a component, but the reason people are sued is because they DISTRIBUTED those files by sharing them. Again, I dont know how many more times I have to say it, because its pretty well known in the world of piracy that no person has ever been sued for ONLY downloading something. I dont know what else you want to hear, its just a fact and known by most everyone who is anyone in the world of piracy.
I dont use BT really at all but I am pretty sure you can dial your upload all the way down to 0kb with utorrent cant ya?
And for the record with all this talk about downloading and sharing and such. The king of filesharing always has been usenet and as long as there is filesharing it will always reign supreme. Theres no question how much of your bandwith youll be able to use up, its ALWAYS maxed out unlike being dependent on seeders or other peoples connections as you download from a centralized server, over a secured connection, and no sharing. But you need to pay for Usenet, well not always. Some ISP's offer usenet access for free but its pretty dumbed down with only certain groups available and youre limited on how many connections you can open. I use ThunderNews, no transfer limits, no bandwidth limit, 50 connections, secure access. I think its $7 a month.
The simply act of using torrents is newbish so adding on some false sense of security such as peer guardian would just make you even more foolish and if youre willing to pay to use a vpn then why not just be smart and pay $7-10 a month for a Usenet account which is the fastest and most secure way to download whatever your heart desires?
Acidbaby (rep: 6.8k) posted Jul 01, 2012
5 days ago
Feb 20, 2016
Mar 18, 2016
Mar 27, 2016
16 days ago
24 days ago