backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Aug 23 at 1:20 AM


Movie Still from IP Man 2
Illegal copyright violations plague the RIAA and MPAA, but issues remain

More than 200,000 accused BitTorrent file sharers have been targeted in the United States for sharing copyrighted material since 2010, though the cases remain rather sketchy while the legal courts get things sorted out.

In the most recent round of lawsuits, porn companies went after unsuspecting pirates of their copyrighted material.  Similar to other reported cases, some were unjustly accused of downloading files they've never heard of, while others simply tried to settle out of court and make things go away.  

However, lawyer Evan Stone has sued an unknown number of John Doe defendants for downloading "IP Man 2," a martial arts movie dubbed in English.  Ironically, the lesser-downloaded version of the popular martial arts movie was downloaded and drew the attention of lawyers.  

The "Ip.Man.2.2010.DVDRip.XviD.AC3-ViSiON" of the film still remains extremely popular among BitTorrent file sharers.

The copyright groups blame billions of dollars of lost revenue on online piracy that seems to only grow more popular among Internet users.  The U.S. court system has been oversaturated with lawsuits from copyright holders and lawyers looking to punish accused file sharers.  

The majority of those receiving settlement letters can arrange to settle for as low as $2,500, or face harsher monetary penalties if they decide to go to trial. 

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) believes its film industry loses more than $6 billion every year because of piracy from unauthorized transfers.  

Independent filmmakers also are relatively unhappy with online piracy, though have had a more difficult time trying to crack down on piracy.  Without the help of the RIAA's organized infrastructure, they've had to fend for themselves.

Similar to cases against accused peer-to-peer file sharing users, BitTorrent users have become easy targets for copyright groups to target.  Most users simply download and share content without attempting to conceal their IP address -- making it even easier to target said pirates.

For people still willing to share files via BitTorrent, experienced users warn to use proxies and other alternative means to conceal your identity.  However, it has still proven difficult to hide from authorities that are better increasing their tracking ability of pirates.

From copyrighted music discographies to movies and pornographic material, there is still a large amount of copyrighted material up for grabs by Internet users.  Regardless of what copyright groups and governments attempt to do, Internet piracy is going to be a problem that rages on beyond 2011.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: You can't lose something you didn't have.
By betacat on 8/16/2011 9:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
As my mother says: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Yes, some copyright holders are excruciatingly aggressive about their assets. That doesn't mean that it somehow gives you right to contravene their rights. You also have to admit there is a blatant disregard for rights on the other side of the debate.

Basically, if I haven't given you any rights to share, copy, transfer, whatever, my copyrighted assets, you can't touch them, no matter what amount of stretched justifications you invent.

Since when is any artist's music, photography or other digital assets, a "public resource"?

I get the temptation and the ease with which we have access to these intangible materials. But, the best thing to do is move on to those that are in a free environment.


By EricMartello on 8/23/2011 1:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As my mother says: "Two wrongs don't make a right."


Kicking off a response with a platitude is a solid indicator that your post will have nothing of value to contribute, but let's see...

quote:
Yes, some copyright holders are excruciatingly aggressive about their assets. That doesn't mean that it somehow gives you right to contravene their rights. You also have to admit there is a blatant disregard for rights on the other side of the debate.


Sharing media of any kind is not "a blatant disregard for rights". Anyone who thinks it is, is either painfully confused or on the sinking ship that is the MPAA/RIAA.

When copyright legislation is getting preferential treatment over CONSTITUTIONAL rights it shows that the people writing these laws are doing so solely for their own interests. Laws in a democratic country need to be accepted by the people, and things like the DMCA and ACTA heavily violate fundamental constitutional rights.

quote:
Basically, if I haven't given you any rights to share, copy, transfer, whatever, my copyrighted assets, you can't touch them, no matter what amount of stretched justifications you invent.


I'm sorry but I do not view you or any of those companies as an authority on anything. If you sell me music, movies or books I can and will share them with people I feel may be interested. The only time there is a valid legal concern would be if I copied and sold these items for a profit, or if I attempted to republish them as my own works. Sharing is not piracy, not a crime and needs to be protected under fair use.

quote:
Since when is any artist's music, photography or other digital assets, a "public resource"?

I get the temptation and the ease with which we have access to these intangible materials. But, the best thing to do is move on to those that are in a free environment.


The value of media has been greatly inflated over the last few decades due to a few large companies controlling almost all of it. Today, the barrier of entry to any form of media is drastically lower and therefore the TRUE value of the media is being revealed.

Yes, the RIAA believes a CD should cost $20 but the true value is more like $2-$3. If your business model hinges on manipulating the market and you lose the ability to manipulate the market - guess what, your "assets" are no longer going to sell when priced outside of the market.

Any artist who is truly an artist does what they do because they want to share it with others. Profiting from their work should be a secondary consideration - and for many it is. Public resource? Hardly...sharing media is what allows good artists to enjoy success without the need for a bloated corporate parasite taking 95% of their revenues.

As long as the copyright laws protect the artists from copy-cats and true pirates, they are sufficient. Attacking the people who share their works is detrimental across the board.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki