What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
134 Comments
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They should pay her $150,000 for watching The Longest Yard.
- AdamFitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8""We don't have evidence that they downloaded the films, but we do know they have these films on their computers," she said."
Anyone else notice that the MPAA spokesperson said this, yet she is being sued for downloading a movie? - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Important note: You do not get sued for "downloading" a file. You get sued for uploading them. I can say with 90% assurance that neither her nor her son downloaded the movie.
Instead, her computer was likely compromised and used by an Internet pirate to seed "The Longest Yard". The MPAA hired a contract company to find out which IP address was seeding the file and subsequently sued under the DMCA "Doe" laws that allow them to issue a subpoena to someone they don't even know. This required the ISP to turn over the records and then they found and sued her.
The problem is the MPAA can't find the *real* illegal file barons, and thus issue blanket lawsuits to cover everyone. They get a few legitimate illegal sharers, but most of the time they end up suing nobodies like this poor woman. GG DMCA, GG MPAA. Enjoy the bad PR. - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The fact that she's alive should help their case.
- Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Anyone else notice that the MPAA spokesperson said this, yet she is being sued for downloading a movie?"
no she is not... she is being sued for Pirating... Making available to download the movie.
I other words, buy a DVD, rip it and make it available and the MPAA will be on your ass.
First thing you do when you are being sued is get a friend to buy you a wireless router and do not encrypt it. Good luck proving that it's you that is downloading all this stuff. - ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This reminds me that I need to download The Longest Yard. I'm such a procrastinator. Thanks for the nudge, MPAA!
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When will people rise up and invoke a peasents with torches policy and burn the MPAA and everyone who supports them.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is starting to sound allot like terrorism, just without the bombs. $150,000 is someones life screwed.
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"You Guys who Pirate movies are *****. My family owns a movie theater and we know what it feels like to have assoles like you out there doin this *****!!! "
You guys who improperly capitalize, spell "*****" incorrectly, and append too many exclamation points are *****. My family has an education, and dumbasses like you make my country look stupid. - ajz8182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How did the MPAA determine she had the movie on her computer?
- TheoDork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3150 GAZILLION DOLLARS?!
- TheRealStyro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Meanwhile in areas surrounding New York City there are possibly hundreds people making thousands of DVD copies per day. On top of that are the thousands of people sharing scores of DVD filesets online. Yet the only people the MPAA can find to sue are poor working people, barely above the poverty level, who somehow have a computer and a connection to the Internet, and the MPAA thinks that one crappy movie is worth something. Un-fracking-believable.
- lnstigator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is it really that har to write "Brooklyn"?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yay, MPAA you are my heroes. That's right, if you don't go after those movie pirating grandma's then who will?!?
/sarcasm - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It works like this:
The MPAA and RIAA set up a node on a p2p network and search for certain files. Your computer comes up as having the file and they get your IP address. They contact your ISP which surrenders your contact info. You then get sued. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I actually experimented with downloading/uploading on the gnutella network over dialup 2 or 3 years ago. The file I chose was a zip file of norton antivirus (keygen included) which I then downloaded constantly for 24 hours. The next day I uploaded the same file for 24 hours. 1 week later my internet was "suspended" by my ISP. When I called I was told that they had received threats from Symantic about the file I was *_*uploading*_* and asking for my information (they had my IP address but that's it) which my ISP refused to give to them (thank God). In order to get my internet reconnected I had to sign a document stating that the "offending" file had been deleted from my computer. So apparently it's not so much the downloading that gets you caught, but the uploading. However, I've been using bittorrent for 3+ years and I upload every single thing that I download, constantly, and have not had any trouble from anyone. Even more recently I have been using PeerGuardian2 with my bittorrent client for added secuirty. (It blocks IP addresses of certain corporations, antipiracy groups, MPAA, RIAA etc.) Just an FYI for you guys.
- 0Troy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The MPAA should be sued for making such crap in the beginning.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You dont get sued for DOWNLOADING you get sued for MAKING THE PIRATED MEDIA AVAILABLE TO OTHER PEOPLE.
People seem to overlook this fact. You can have 50 millions pirated songs on your computer (well not technically) and it will only be when you make that media available to others will you get into a lawsuit.
How do I know?
I was named in the Napster/Metallica lawsuit. The case against me was dropped because they foolishly only indicted me on the Metallica songs on my PC. What they didnt do was actually try to download the songs from my PC which were (SUPRISE!) text files renamed to song names.mp3 (granted a evil tactic to get others to share with me, but I wasnt giving up my bandwidth - plus I never learned to play nice). As a result, I actually owned each and every track on CD or cassette that they claimed to be pirated. They later tried to come after me for the other 65 GB of music on my HDs only to be shot down by the judge for having a shot at me and missing.
(I used to be a huge Metallica fan.) What really pisses me off about this whole thing is if you read the Liner Notes of the Garage Days Revisted album, Larrs CLEARLY states that he would copy albums to cassette over at Jame's house to go home and learn the music (WOW! Isnt that pirating?!). Guess its different if you ***** up your first 4 albums (via poor management decisions) and got milked out of 87% of your musics profits. So instead of going after the record companies who screwed them... lets go after our evil fans! *****.. Metallica can rot in hell... I did get Snake Pit tickets here in Albany(NY) and wore my KISS MY ASS LARS shirt and spit on James everytime he spit into the Snake Pit (see and they say smoking has no benefit - but it does make for some large nasty ... nvm). - DDRSkata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did anyone else notice that the article mentioned that there were two songs from the film's soundtrack on the computer when the reporter looked?
What probably happened is that the teenager downloaded those songs, the MPAA searched (probably on Limewire) for "The Longest Yard," downloaded everything that came up regardless of size, and sued all the IP adresses sharing data to them.
As many of you said before me, it's illegal and extremely unethical to sue those who can't fight back based on NO EVIDENCE. It's painfully obvious that the **AAs are only in it for the money, not the whole "protecting the artists" ***** they're using as a cover story. The **AAs are nothing more than muggers, swindlers, and highway bandits. They don't attack those who are likely to have knowledge of technology or the legal system. They don't attack those who have power, influence, or access to proper legal counsel. They attack poor people. They attack senior citizens. They attack children.
The arts are not goods to be bought and sold; they are commodities of common interest. The experience can be sold (e.g. movie theaters) and the media upon which the artistic material is written can be sold (e.g. DVD), but what's more important to true artists than money is the art itself. A true artist is not upset about piracy; rather, he is proud to see his work spreading.
Also, if the **AAs want us to pay for their products, they ought to push better work to the mainstream. If a CD consists of a group of rappers repeating one fragment or sentence per song (e.g. "Oh, I think they like me," or, "In my white tee," or, "I be on dat Kryptonite") for twelve bloody songs, of course nobody's going to spend their hard earned money on CDs, especially when they can get a much better album from an indie label for much less money. In terms of film, movies like Donnie Darko and Equilibrium that have taken years to gain any kind of semi-mainstream success due to their limited distrubution upon release should take precedent over things like "Are We There Yet?" and "House of Wax."
The **AAs, particularly the RIAA, claim we are stealing money from the artists. This is only marginally true. First, of the amount of material pirated, how much would actually be purchased if pirating was eradicated? The **AAs don't consider those variables. They don't think of how many people wouldn't bother with music or films because they didn't have the money for them. If someone enjoys a movie or album enough, it's highly likely that person will purchase the film or album once he or she has the resources to do so. Which brings me to my next point...file sharing is an invaluable resource for the **AAs. Sharing of products that have already been released increases their exposure and word-of-mouth about them, which, in turn, can increase sales. To take it a step further, advance leaks of products can lead to more hype about them before release. Finally, it's clear that the **AAs are supporting the executives more than the artists; musicians, for example, get five cents on every CD (eight to fourteen cents per downloaded song on iTunes), which they only see after they recieve enough of those few-cent portions to recoup the costs of recording, touring, etc. - 3-6-0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1did that ***** movie even make 150k???
- aa3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"did that ***** movie even make 150k???"
No that's why they are suing.. They have to recoup the money somehow.. - mckinnej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Screw the downloading. It takes to long and clogs up my machine with big files. I just wait for the movies I sort of want to see to drop in price. Crap like this shows up in the $5 bin at Walmart in fairly short order. I figure I saved my time and $149,995 in the process.
The movies I REALLY want to see I will see them in the theater. Last year I think that was like 5 movies...yes Virginia, movies suck these days, just like music.
The RIAA and MPAA are struggling to hang on to a high-margin business model that technology has made obsolete. They litigate the public and moan about poor sales. Hey, nobody ever accused these people of being intelligent. In the meantime, they are working on a per-use business model that will be rejected by the public when they find out just how expensive it will be, especially considering the content will still be crap.
This should also be a lesson for the BitTorrent folks who leave their shares running 24x7. Intermittent sharing is much hardered to catch. - DanFahey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Long story short for Digg.com
MPAA will not be able to sustain this type of behaviour. Because it is the citizen's duty to stand up to corruption like this. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I say everyone downloading movies should spoff their IPs to be those of the MPAA and/or RIAA!
Wouldn't that be a fun game to play?"
That doesn't work for bittorrent since the packets would be sent to the MPAA's computer's (and then dropped) instead of yours. You could use an anonymizer service or a proxy instead but that many bittorrent packets are going to attract the attention of your intermediary. If they are smart (i.e. if they don't want to be the target of a suit) they need to be seen as trying to actively discourage piracy.
The sad part is that the easiest way to stay anonymous is to hop onto someone else's wireless network and make them the target of any suit instead of you. In fact, that is probably exactly what happened in this case. - bondo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"its pretty obvious the 16 year old kid downloaded and is afraid of admitting it."
Not unless someone hacked her machine and was using it to download and store files. - Browncoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they wanted to watch the longest yard why didnt they say so? I would have been happy to give my copy away... Well it's my brothers copy but I would have given it away just as fast :P
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where do they come up with a figure like $150,000? Is that really what they think was lost in revenue because this old lady *might* have been sharing the movie? The only person I can see actually getting hit with a lawsuit that large is the original person who posted the movie on the net.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've always wondered, what would happen if companies like "Vivid" and others in the adult movie industry started suing people for downloading pirated vids? What would the headlines read then?
- DennyCrane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Where do they come up with a figure like $150,000? Is that really what they think was lost in revenue because this old lady *might* have been sharing the movie?"
I am not sticking up for the MPAA but does anyone ever read the copyright notice that plays at the beginning of every DVD. It states that the maximum fine is $250,000 and up to five years in prison. The law also states they do not have to prove lose of revenue to get this judgment.
In my opinion they just need to stop paying all the people that make the movies so much money, including the stars. Come on is any star worth 20 million a movie when they only work on it for 3 - 6 months. This is another reason it costs so much for us to go to a theater or buy a DVD to see this crap. Piracy is not the only reason the box-office is down, have you seen the crap they have been making the last year or so. This industry is built on stars directors and producers that are all way overpaid for what they provide. If they expect to grow as an industry they are going to have to find a way to make it cheaper for us to buy this type of entertainment or they will never take a bite out of piracy. I think Apple (not an Apple fan myself just fact) has proven that if you give the public reasonably priced entertainment they will buy it. They will never stop piracy especially with their tactics. If they would just wake up and stop fighting the future (actually the present) and embrace the technology, they could make some money from it. Instead they chose to waste time and money fighting it with stupid lawsuits against people that will not be able to pay the fines. In the end they still end up with nothing no monetary gain and why they were fighting that one person 10,000 more just started pirating movies from them - MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The movie and music industry figures they can get enough slackers to pay up so that the only people still pirating are the "pros". It's the same tactic they have been trying to do in law enforcement for some time... bust the dumb ones, possibly scaring the other dumb ones straight. It's a Pyrrhic victory for them, but it gives them good press and a sympathetic ear towards the great unwashed who don't know any better. It's amazing what you can tell technophobes and they'll accept it as truth. And the press' complicity only magnifies it.
Just don't share your (obviously fair-use protected) rips directory, and no one will come after you. ;) - brashquido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You Guys who Pirate movies are *****. My family owns a movie theater and we know what it feels like to have assoles like you out there doin this *****!!!"
I know the point you are making, but you have to keep in mind that it is not likely that people pirating movies would actually pay to see it. The major studios have been punching out such crap over the last few years it's been 6 months since I've been to the cinema. I love going to the cinema, as even with my $15k home theatre you just can't beat that big screen atmosphere, but by the same token I'm not going to pay $12 to see a peice of crap movie. - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You Guys who Pirate movies are *****. My family owns a movie theater and we know what it feels like to have assoles like you out there doin this *****!!! "
You guys who improperly spell, append too many exclamation points, and incorrectly capitalize are *****. My family owns an education, and its idiots like you who make their country that much stupider. - chr0naut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I understand it, receiving a broadcast is not illegal, it is the broadcasting (without the artistic work's copyright owner) that is illegal.
It could be argued that distributing/sharing a work is broadcasting and that is the probable tack that the MPAA will have to take because their "downloading is stealing" mantra has already been thrown out of court before and is untrue according to the law.
I hope the judge really throws the book at this vexatious litigant and stops them from persecuting the general public once and for all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I paid 150,000 dollars, and all I got was a crappy Adam Sandler movie"
- stefang7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the title of the article is misleading. She is not being sued for downloading but for making available for upload. As mentioned by other comments, the MPAA sets up P2P nodes and searches for movies. If you are a source that's good enough for a lawsuit. You don't get in trouble for downloading for now, but not because it's legal, but because it's much more efficient for the MPAA and RIAA to stop uploaders. If you use eDonkey or torrents as you download you are also making available the incomplete file for upload. If you have some copyrighted file available for upload you can get in trouble even if the file is incomplete and even if nobody has actually downloaded anything file from you.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most people in NY write it B'klyn. It's just common. Besides, the poster was taking the headline from the article.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"did that ***** movie even make 150k???"
Not with all the Grandma's in Brooklyn pirating it! Think of the poor starving actors! Someone has to stop grandma before it's too late... - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm boycotting the movie theater, buying DVDs and giving them any of my money. I hope you all, as my fellow diggers, will do the same.
- laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm boycotting the movie theater, buying DVDs and giving them any of my money. I hope you all, as my fellow diggers, will do the same."
Yeah, haha ... I already have.
"My family owns a movie theater"
Shut the ***** up, Modern cinema is a horrible experience, get way overcharged for a soda than sit down to watch a bad movie behind a fat black woman ona cell who won't shut up. - Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*sigh* why wont the MPAA just SHUT UP!?! gosh, they just need to chill out.
Oh, and the only reason they might be losing money on movies is because the movies that are out these days SUCK MAJOR ASS. - jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How would a "I uploaded 1's and 0's, not a movie" defense hold up in court?
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This reminds me of a good grandma joke.. Subject: Grandma
Lawyers should never ask a Southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer. In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand.
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster! , too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died. The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you ask her if she knows me, I'll throw you both in jail - news234, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://tronbe.info/details/movie/Longest+Yard%2C+T ... - You may download Longest Yard movie here
- gamche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now I'm lost haven't we been taught to share? Did I miss a lesson in life somewhere?
- baronvonrolo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love this idea, "let's pick on the smallest person available who can't fight back"
At least try and sue someone with 1,000 high paid lawyers on hand just to at least get a bit of sport out of it. - exick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Just remember she's not guilty yet, just charged with a crime."
Wrong. If she were being charged with a crime, she wouldn't be being taken to court by the MPAA. There would be police and a district attorney involved. She's being sued, which is not only prohibitively expensive if she decides not to settle, but also doesn't carry the added burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. - jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"btw i've downloaded movies via 56k, AOL at that. i would get the movies from the cerver rooms, and set up the attachments to download one after another. the movie would usually be done in the morning."
Does AOL still have those rooms? AOL server room bots and their mail system was (or maybe still is) probably the best way to pirate. Even better than IRC or newsgroups. Why haven't I read much about AOL getting sued or served or something? - accidental, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well there is no doubt in my mind she didnt download that film... Her kid? Yeah he probably did. Who among us hasn't downloaded crappy stuff off the internet just because-we-can.. Still, 150k is a little excessive. How about 150 dollars.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope this woman sues them back for illegal intrusion of her system (no evidence of d/l, but they know it's on her computer = they "hacked" into her computer)
- jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you pirate or file share in a place like AOL where you have to subscribe, does that count as public distribution?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is