DISQUS

f*** the mpaa. pencil dick b*******

reply

Chroma

So by the MPAA's logic its perfectly suitable to sue motorbike manufacturers because "users do not wear helmets?"

And dont the MPAA have any concept of mistitling? I can easily upload a torrent called Whatever_hot_new_release.avi and it could contain absoloulty anything.

The same premise goes for reversing the procedure, a filter goes up and users could easily resort to hex links or some other form of simple cypher to workaround the magical filter.

As usual people get the most inept and underqualified to stage an offensive in an area they have no real experience in.

Piracy has been a valid problem since the dawn of "intelectual property", when will people finaly realise that trying to fight it is only a loosing battle? it happens on a GLOBAL SCALE, regional laws have no place on a global network.

You find a way to prevent one form of piracy and another two crop up in its place, its like trying to fight back the tide with a mop and bucket.

reply

Geogriffith

It is clear to anyone who does not have entrenched ties with either side of this conflict that we are witnessing the birth of a new form of media distribution. Until now, two factors have prevented small companies from being able to compete with large media conglomerates: Production and Distribution.

The production barrier has already been shattered. High quality cameras are selling in the sub-$1000 range, and film and photo editing software has fallen to similar levels. All it takes for a small group of people to produce a high quality film is a now acheivable amount of production money.

The distribution barrier is now being chipped away. Cheap web hosting unleashed a flood of websites on the internet, as anyone older than 15 can attest to. But for high bandwidth services, like videos, the costs of distribution are still too high. This is where technologies like bittorrent come in. By hosting and seeding a torrent of their files, a poorly financed group can easily share their productions without going broke.

The real goal of the MPAA is not to lock up copyrighted material. It is to prevent the release of millions of grassroots production groups from breaking apart their monopoly on media. When the next smash comedy is coming not from a multimillion dollar studio in Hollywood, but the garage next door, the corporate control of the media market will come crashing down.

reply

Anonymous

That's exactly how I'm going to distribute my movie if it ever gets finished. Art should not be about profit. All I want is enough money to keep making movies and stay alive. No mansions, entourages or fancy cars. By way of donation fans can donate money DIRECTLY to the people who made the movie. Direct to the artist. And that's IF they deem the art worthy. If not that's cool too. I'd be quite a hypocrite to call myself an artist and demand payment from everyone who saw my work. Especially since I've downloaded countless movies and deemed them crap and thus unworthy of my hard earned money. But that's how the hollywood system works. Pay first, complain later. Now with cheap(er) production methods and free distribution the revolution is almost here.

reply

Darxide

I like your theory, Geogriffith. I mean honestly, how much money is the film industry losing in the end? They make so many millions of dollars PER FILM that anything they would lose due to P2P sharing, etc is merely a drop in the bucket. And when you think about it, where does the majority of the money go? To the middleman. Distribution, advertising, etc. If you look at the music industry, how many groups/artists are on the verge of going broke even though they have a hit album out? All that profit goes to the agents, etc. Most of those artists make their real money from live concerts and other merchandise sales, not from the record sales. I think paying a film star several million dollars for a 90 minute movie is so absurd it borders on mental insanity. Seriously, how many people in this country couldn't survive comfortably off of just $100,000 a year? And these people are making $100M a year?! The way I see it, the only people being hurt by internet sharing of movies and music are the people that deserve to be hurt, the ones that shouldn't even be involved. They are parasites and leeches that deserve to shrivel and die. More and more the "arts" are becomming less and less artistic and more and more "What kind of slop can we throw into the trough to bring in some more profit this time?" I say long live the independant movie makers and song writers who are in it for the fun and the expression. Of course everyone needs to make a living, but there is no need to go out fleecing the sheep of this country in doing so. And I use the word "sheep" for more than one reason....

reply

Mark

This is all absolutely true. While organisations such as MPAA liken downloading movies to stealing a car or a handbag, this is like comparing a friendly slap on the back with attempted murder. The only people who are really losing out are the people who get paid far too much for doing next to nothing. Sure, the nearby movie library may lose out a couple of bucks, but this is only if I would have hired the movie from them, not one of their competitors. For that matter, the movies I download tend to be ones which I was vaguely interested in, but not enough to actually pay money to see. Were downloading not an option, I would simply have never seen these movies. Worthwhile moives, I tend to buy or rent or see at that the cinemas, both as a way of getting good quality and a way of paying respect to the makers of a good movie.

reply

dmx@home

i think its just all a load of poo
if microsoft made printer and file sharing and i upload a file off my friends pc that he put on it like a film he went a got from a shop am i doing the mpaa rules in?? really microsoft should not have ,made it so people can download things in the end i dont think that the MPAA right to even try and force people into making things go there way by just being down right rude to all the web sites..
it just goes to show what the yankies are like just because they are one of the bigest cuntrys in the world does not mean they can push pepole around but hey they do and its not right just like bum man gorge bush or what ever his shitie name is..
i think its all down to the yanks what a load of spanks

reply

Shin

Err, thanks for that DMX.

I live in England, what do the MPAA have on me? Fuck all because I'm English, right? probably....

I download films. I download music. I download games Why? Because its free, simple as that.

I like to own originals, I mean who doesn't, right? If something is good enough for me to buy I'll buy it and get rid of my "illegal" copies. Good enough also includes the price.

A CD should not cost me £20....$40, the CD costs little under 5 pence to make, on average around 30 pence per copy of the CD that would add up to pay for the design costs of the covers and art. 35 pence an album should cost. Then you take into account the cost of paying the artists £4 per CD.

I would be happy to pay £4.35p for a CD, but instead, I have to pay £20 for a double disc. Insanity.

The day I see a film star slumming it ont he streets is the day I'll stop downloading (That or when they start to execute for it) If the MPAA ever tried to sue me, I'll refuse.

People want to claim ownership on my favourite bands music, OTHER than my favourite band, well f**k you too.

Greedy American corperations wanting to silver line there pockets even more.

I respect people running torrent site, I respect people like ISOHunt for standing up to these c**ts and refusing to back down.

reply

dave d

fuck the mpaa. i live in n.ireland and the day that i see any movie star or a singer doing a hard days graft in a factory or on the railways or even in the police will be the day that i die. it is bollocks that they are sitting in their million pound mansions while dicks like us work our balls off just to buy their movies or cd's. i will buy their crap, but only after i have heard what i am going to buy. torrent up loaders deserve the respect that they are not given as they go (most times) and buy the product and share it with us to evaluate for ouselves. the only people who are losing out are the people that pay £20 for a cd for just one or two songs. whart is the differernce between downloading it on the net and going to your mate who has bought it and putting it in your hi-fi and copying the thing. beats me!

reply

tom from Michigan

Ty Isohunt for all your hard work! I have finally been able to enjoy music and movies without going bankrupt to do so. In my profession, anyone can copy any part of my service or product without infringement copyright laws affecting them. I take it as a compliment. Movie stars, Music artists, and Sport figures make multi-millions per year in income...grossly overstated. Sharing should be the world way...giving makes people smile...i know i'm smiling now, due to bittorrent sites like Isohunt and Box torrent. Tom

reply

Shin

I know I don't feel bad at making Tom Cruise lose a million on his movies. The cunt gets 12 million per film, he needs what? 12 fucking million in the bank to see him to the end of his days.

reply

CheckSum_Bad

All movies are dumb and low quality cultural material wich noone would ever watch if it wasnt for free. I would never pay to watch all this dump stuff. Hollywood movie makers get enough money from stupid/drunk users that pay for it.

MPAA, etc. they also get alot of money to fight piracy but it's completely pointless now that we have p2p. Many have tried to stop p2p but it's only growing. Many have tried to stop content servers but everyone is jumping to p2p and its again growing. What's the pint MPAA/whatever ? Your work is pointless.

The whole way intelectual propery stuff is sold in the world is wrong. Why would I buy a buggy MS OS when I need the money for electricity bills etc. ? US corporations maybe think that the whole world is rich like them and would pay their prices ? Well the whole world thinks their products kinda suck.

reply

elliottback

Come on guys. The theoretical underpinnings of open information and ethical p2p rest on the positive ideas of "share and share alike," as well as the assumption that p2p doesn't directly deprive artists of earnings. Once you start talking about p2p as if it's a vehicle to steal $$$$ from artists, studios, producers, et cetera, your claims lose all legitimacy!

reply

Shin

Without money put into those MS OS's from people buying them they can't become less buggy.

On the otherside, I disagree with everything MS does. Data Rights Management won't stick by me

reply

Not That Stupid

Has ISOHunt been shut down. I hasnt been up in days.
Think they may have eventually given up.

reply

Geogriffith

ISOHunt is up right now. Sound like they only just switched to their new servers.

reply

JackSprat

I don't think it is up. I haven't been able to access it from home or work for at least 3 days.

reply

Geogriffith

It must be your isp. I have no problem accessing the site and doing a few sample searches.

reply

kirsty

its gd 4 the ppl who can b movie stars ect but no im the only 1 who doesnt no how we have 2 pay 2 b a movie ster n stuff im like 11 years old and i dont have enough money 2 pay 2 b on tele but no i cant b cos the money is 2 high 2 b an actor!!

reply

kitk

Every time I buy or sell a used CD or DVD on Priceminister (French eq. of EBay) I wonder if the artists are getting any of the proceeds, or if the commission only goes to the site operator. I doubt MPAA or the music biz is getting a cut. maybe they should sue EBay and Priceminister, too?

reply

shadow

mmm mmm, we all should run our servers from africa i think its a good idea to find a country with less MPPA bullshit.................. ....

why does the mppa think they are the internet police wtf ! am sooo angry with them i think all movies older then 2 years should be published into public domain..... after all 2 years its pretty long for the movie to make $$$$ after that we all can use it for free. i hope p2p will never die out and i hope one day mppa are dead

ps, isoH the best keep up the good work !!!! lokieTorr dead :(((

reply

MikeO

The movie/music industries have a right to protect their works. They spend years and a whole lot of money to create the works. It takes thousands of people, who need to be able to afford the essentials of life, to create a major motion picture. They have a right to get a return on their hard work.

However, my problem with the MPAA is that works distributed on p2p or through torrent networks are not (most of the time) distributed for monetary gain. Not only that, but, there are people being sued who are regular contributers to the movie/music industries. Most people who download DO buy these works.

They are alienating and pissing off the people who give them money for their products(people like me). I have a movie collection of store bought DVD's that could rival some outlets. If I like a movie, I buy a high quality copy of it(DVD). If the entertainment industry could realize this, they could take advantage of the wonderful aspects of file sharing and stop hurting the people they are going after.

Be responsible, continue to buy stuff.

reply

MikeO

The movie/music industries have a right to protect their works. They spend years and a whole lot of money to create the works. It takes thousands of people, who need to be able to afford the essentials of life, to create a major motion picture. They have a right to get a return on their hard work.

However, my problem with the MPAA is that works distributed on p2p or through torrent networks are not (most of the time) distributed for monetary gain. Not only that, but, there are people being sued who are regular contributers to the movie/music industries. Most people who download DO buy these works.

They are alienating and pissing off the people who give them money for their products(people like me). I have a movie collection of store bought DVD's that could rival some outlets. If I like a movie, I buy a high quality copy of it(DVD). If the entertainment industry could realize this, they could take advantage of the wonderful aspects of file sharing and stop hurting the people they are going after.

Be responsible, continue to buy stuff. Download like crazy too!

reply

DR.KONG

FUCK THE MPAA

IF THEY SUE

JUST PAY SOME JUNLY IN L.A $5 TO FIRE BOMB THE MPAA BOSSES HOUSES

reply

DR.KONG

I MEAN JUNKY

reply

DR.KONG

AS LONG AS IT COST THEM MORE THAN IT DOES YOU ITS ALL GOOD

reply

MikeO

What are they threatening people with these days?

$50,000 and up to 3 years in jail for one offence?

In most cases, they end up settling for something like 5,000 and then make a big stink about how they're suing the hell out of people.

Lawyers cost a lot. They need to embrace us leechers.

Product placement goes a long way. Maybe they can use that to their advantage.

reply

Nick

You are all idiots....go out and BUY the products if you really enjoy them, people work hard to make this and DONT want it stolen. So stop being jews and pay $14 for a CD or whatever if you really like it.

reply

ben

you make a valid point, but i don't like your anti-semitism. i'm not jewish but i don't like people who hate others because of their faith/race

reply

5tein

There's actually a huge ethical difference between pirated music and pirated film. American films are huge-budget beasts that require hundreds of staff members and dozens of highly talented individuals. Film production requires a substantial monetary investment and may be taking considerable risks in the market. To that end, I fully support film producers protecting and securing their product, especially since we already have good general access to most films via video rental and low-price commercial distributors.

The music industry is another matter. To produce an album one does need a small team of technically proficient sound engineers, but not to the extent required of film. In music production the real talent is the artist/band, and in terms of compensation, they get very little from album sales; most of their income comes from touring and related product sales. And now is really the best time ever to be a musician. High tech, low cost software and recording equipment makes doing it yourself a reality, and distribution opportunities have never been better, thanks to the web and p2p. I challenge anyone to argue to me that most musicians are hurt by illegal file sharing more than they are helped. The argument works for the film industry, but not for music.

reply

Shin

I have bought all of th films that I downloaded, and liked.

"You are all idiots.go out and BUY the products if you really enjoy them, people work hard to make this and DONT want it stolen. So stop being jews and pay $14 for a CD or whatever if you really like it."

Thats far too much for a peice of plastic that costs 5 pence to make, $7 is good enough, the cheaper that CD is, the more will be sold, its fucking simple business practice.

I make a product that costs me £100,000 to make, I'm likely to sell more of said product at £4 a piece, than £14 a peice.

reply

rational thinker

simple fact: the sie operates outside of the MPAA's jurisdiction. The ethical question remains, but the site can perform whatever functions it wants within it's own local laws.

that being said, with all the crappy software that has been shoved down consumer's throats, it is nice to play before you pay.

oh, and if you are going to be anti-sematic, hate globally. all religons suck. ;)

reply

rational thinker

wow....totally should preveiw before posting...sorry about the typo's!

reply

doesnotcaretoleaveanick

Its amazing how people believe irrationally insulting a group would encourage them to listen. I am more likely to listen to a person who calmly explains their idea without attacking my character than a homeless stinking drunk screaming obsenaties at me. Who knows maybe thats just me.

reply

Shin

No, thats pretty spot on that, mate. People screaming at me get my finger or my fist.

I'm not about to pay £20 to watch a film that could be potentially shite. Buying Pirates ensures I'm not about to be ripped off for buying a sack of shite. Take RE2, the film is crap, I'd have wasted £20 buying that shit on DVD had I not downloaded it and deleted it in disgust.

I can listen to a song on the radio for free, why can't I download and listen for free? I like originals and I like my CD cases and books, If I like the band that much I'll buy them, if not I'll listen to them on the radio for free, but wait, wheres the harm in downloading them and STILL listening to them for free?

That, and last lot of CD's I bought were in the sale, each CD no more than £7 and I bought 5 of them. Had those CD's been full price, I'd have been able to buy 2. Now common business practice tells me that in times of a sale, they sell more CD's and really, don't lose nothing, because those CD's cost no more than £2 to make, per CD, if that, I mean times £2 by half a million...thats 1 million (Isn't my maths great eh?) that album, all in all didn't cost 1 million to make, including ALL costs.

So, why do the consumers have to pay 7 times the frigging cost?

The invention of the internet and P2P software has bitten these greedy cunts where they think about most, thier wallet and they don't like it one fucking bit. The film and music industry should not bite the hand that feeds it, being that, us, the consumers, they keep suing us, even though CD sales haven't fallen one bit, then people will take a stand.

I know I for one haven't bough anymore CD's that I used to before I got the net and I haven't bought less either.

So fuck the MPAA and the other scandalous cunts, and the cunt who got annoyed here and told me to stop being cheap (us..me, whatever ).

reply

jk47

well i say screw the mpaa for telling me what i can and can't watch. and i end up buying all these movies on dvd when they come out, so the studio is still making its money off me, its just getting it once instead of twice. and as for Nick and Shin, you come to my neck of the woods with that shit talking about jews and this jew will send you back to your trailer park in a box.

reply

Shin

I didn't say once, anything, about Jews.

reply

Keep information free

There's a difference between stealing a cd from a shop, and copying the information digitally.

Stealing a CD from a shop physically removes something of value from it's rightful owner. The CD features a high-quality encoding of a musical performance, a jacket sleve, a box, and possibly a number of other extra features. That physical product cost money to produce, and has a value, and an owner.

If everyone could take CDs for free, record companies and shops would suffer, because they spend money making the CDs, and taking a free CD is a direct disincentive to buy that same CD.

However, copying a CD costs the record company nothing directly. Making a digital copy of the music encoded on the CD does not require any money from the record company. Sharing that digital copy on the internet does not cost the record company any money. A digital copy of the music encoded on the CD is not a direct replacement for a CD bought in a shop.

If I download music from the internet, I have cost the record company nothing, except my potential revenue from buying the CD of that music in a shop. A digital copy of the music on a CD, and the CD itself, consisting of the elements outlined above, are clearly different things.

The only way the record company can prove that I have cost them anything is to prove that my obtaining the digital copy stopped me from buying a CD. This has never been proven. This has never even been investigated. Indeed, every study investigating file sharing has found no direct link between increased file sharing and decreased CD, DVD, software or other types of copyable product sales.

reply

LavaMan

Here's my POV:

As everyone here has already pointed out, movies take a ton to create. I am all for limiting copyright violations on movies. All I am waiting for is a Netflix business model that is downloadable not shipped. I read in a mag that it's not far off.

As CD, most people have no idea about the real costs of developing a successful CD. It's never as simple as recording an artist, duplicating the CDs and putting it on shelves or online.

Once you've established an Artist and they have a fan base, it does get easier... but the first album is damn big investment. I know because I have done some internet marketing work for an independent recording studio.

For example, to get radio stations to play a single can cost in the mid five digits amounts and even more if you want a lot of play time. I know the very next thing someone will say is that the Internet lets you cut that cost out and blah blah blah. Guess what... it doesn't.

Radio stations are sort of a filter for us. They play the type of music we would like. I listen to 102.5 & 103.5 here in Sacramento. They play Hip Hop & R&B; music. When I tune to them, I expect a certain type of music and 60-80% of the time, I like what I hear. They have already filtered out what I probably wouldn't like.

Now consider mp3.com. There are thousands and thousands of artists on there. There is no freaken way I will go through them to decide what I like. I just don't have the time.

So if we eliminated radios, mtv or magazines may be the only other source I could look at to find good stuff. Those cost even more money than radio.

All in all, it costs 2x time as much to market a cd than to produce it. There are tons of people involved. It was bullshit when the labels were selling a CD for $20 a piece 5 years ago. But I just bought the new Natalie (famous song is "Going Crazy" & "Energy") at Borders for $12.95. Yes, its her first album and she won't make much on it. Most of it will go to the record label for the cost of establishing her. On her second album, she'll make a ton of money live filthy rich.

I don't see how anyone couldn't afford to buy songs off iTunes or Napster. I mean on Napster, you can download all you want for $20/month. I spend more on coffee in a week. I personally like the having the actual CD so I buy the CDs.

Anyway, I think I've rambled on for quite a bit. Later.

- LavaMan

reply

Raz

If Record Companies and Film Producers want to stop copyright theft, they can stop the internet all together.
But until then, Internet Surfing Pirates like myself will keep doing what we do best. Downloading Treasure.

reply

Nick

Ok well, I'm sorry, I shouldnt have said anything at all about jews, I didnt really mean it, I just couldnt think of a better way to put it. For the record, I have nothing against hebrew people or any culture for that matter, from Aussie, to Sweden to Israel it doesnt matter, I like everybody, so I'm sorry if I got anyone angry with that.

Peace & Unity
~Nick

reply

Dazzanz

Lets face it, we all live in a society of greed and thats all this is about....someone along the line is losing money. I can understand it to a certain degree. I personally think that if I wasn't ripped off by the blood sucking leaches i would happily go and pay a decent amount for a dvd/Cd etc. For the record I have a huge 'non downloaded' collection of DVD's and CD's which has made all these Actors/musicians extremely rich to the point of hundreds of millions and me more poorer. I accept that you have to pay for luxuries in life....(you would expect to go into a cake shop and eat it for free) but my point is this........

Why doesn't all these budding actors - Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie (Love ya t!ts by the way) stop charging astronomical amounts to quite frankley have quite an amazing job!!! Maybe if the cut their wages they could lower the movie theatre tickets and price of DVD's.

reply

olafur

Its an easy way to explain. I respect artists (hear that artists, not record labels) that make good music, i hear that music on the radio or through downloading it on the internet and buy the cd if i feel like they are worth my money, since if i buy the CD it will give them a better chance of making another record which i will buy also if i like how it is sounding.

Buying CD's from a shop is very much a russian roulette and trying to listen to that particular CD in the shop is bad also since background noise, other customers and just a general uncomfortable feeling being there with some crappy headphones standing there like a dork.

MPAA's actions are a joke.

reply

Jingli

People who download movies off the net are not stealing it........... they just want to preview the stuff ..... before buying the original DVD or CD;
Like it happens to many people, going by the ads/ trailers buy the DVDs off the store and find that the good part in the movie was just that 3minute of the movie shown in the trailer!!! Then nobody will refund the cost! or exchange it with a better movie.
Most of us who like the movie or music that we downloaded ..... we actually buy the original DVDs and CDs, coz nothing can replace the actual or original Material!

reply

The Sleeper

Personally I think the Preview excuse is crap, but i also agree that prices, on plastic **** that makes us poorer, are ridiculously bloated. I have seen far too many bootleggers selling good quality rips before somthing has even been in the theatre a week .. thats is right off the top stealing. I myself am an artist and writer, as well i wiork with a band to help produce their media. The biggest barrier seems to be the decision to stay indie or go corporate ... sorry MPAA and Recording Ind. but i believe very strongly that you have no right to take an artists work and do as u please with it ... well ok conflicting opinions in here i am a litlle crazy. Basically I produce my stuff personally as i can be my own publisher. and if peopl want to see hear or read my material then let them come i don't need someone to make me rich from doing what i love to do. I offer decent quality previews of my media freely in this digital age for them to share and share alike. as many others do also ... look at bruce hornsby .....

reply

SpeNce

LavaMan,

How can you say that radio stations filter the music we hear? Clear Channel basically has a monopoly over the radio stations we hear, and only the record companies that are making extravagant amount of money from sales who can afford to pay radio stations to play their music get airtime. Therefore we do not hear the bands that pass the "filter" and provide the best music; all we hear is the music (sometimes junk) that the record companies want us to hear. Independent bands with some promise might occasionally get an hour of airtime at odd hours of the day, but in order for them to make it into mainstream listening (even if they are far better than some junk bands who paid for airtime) they must first get signed by a record label or receive fan support equivalent to an act of god.
Basically, the only filtering we get is filtering out some talented bands that wouldn't put too large a dent in our wallets and most inexperienced startup bands that would only appeal to a small few people; in the end we only get to listen to what record companies pay us to listen to. Forcing us to listen to what they want us to hear is a far bigger problem than our downloading and previewing of their copyrighted artists, so why don't we fix the ORIGINAL problem first?!

-Spence

reply

James

ok... i'm on the fence on this whole topic, but i have to admit that downloading the media does have some huge advantages.

for example, a friend of mine downloaded 50 cent's new album because he owned the first one and wanted to see if the new one was any good. it's rubbish, so he just saved himself $17.00 from buying the thing, and deleted it cause it wasn't even worth the disk space.

i know for sure if i ever have downloaded a movie or album, if i like it, i'll buy it everytime.

reply

Robert

The monetary claims that these companies post as losses due to online copying is INSANE. They are speculating that every download is lost revenue from a cd or ticket purchase. We can all agree no matter what side of the fence you are on that their numbers and claims are nothing but MALARKY.

Now the important part of their claims is that sometimes people who would've bought a cd or purchased a movie ticket got an illegal copy and decided not to spend the money to buy the cd (they have a burned copy) or goto the movie (they've already seen it). The monetary loss is existent to these companies but is not nearly as huge as they would like to portray. People as a whole love to exaggerate numbers almost as a form of bragging or greed I think.

I download music cds. SO SUE ME. The difference with my downloading habits is that I purchase the CDs if they are good. If they suck I WILL NOT buy the CD. This does nothing but make artists actually create artistic arrangements and not just say "HEY... HEY..HEY.. " to some horribly awful beat made completely on the computer in 30 seconds.

If the CD I download is quite wonderfully put together, I run out to the nearest store to obtain my copy. I buy the CD not to have it in my CD player (this is why burned copies are gold mines) but I toss the CD in a box in my closet. I support labels and artists who don't just make CDs with garbage to see if people buy them.

Movies are a different story. If you download a movie on Thursday and watch it, the chances of you going to see it in the theatre on Friday are pretty slim. This doesn't affect your DVD purchasing though. DVD purchasing makes companies lots of money. DVDs are inexpensive mediums of exchange and can generate huge lump sums in quick time periods. Theatre showings are expensive mediums as they must produce reels for each theatre and in a lot of cases more than one reel per theatre all over the country (maybe even world?). The theatres also get a portion of the proceeds so there is lost revenue there.

I generally buy previewed DVDs for $10 (yes they are in excellent condition and I plan to keep this going as long as I can).

In summation, the MPAA and RIAA are making up ridiculous numbers to scare people into thinking they are going bankrupt or losing insane amounts of business when in reality they are losing sum (no way around it) but people do support good works.

I'm outie. But the MPAA and RIAA are probably more corrupt than any government I've seen. Saddam looks like a young school girl compared to their corrupt practices. PEACE.

reply

Cam

The previewing of media is not an excuse for downloading copyrighted material, It is a full blown GOOD reason. Every CD that I have ever purchased (no small number) I have downloaded before forking out the cash. Every movie I have ever downloaded has either been deleated for being a piece of garbage or I have purchased it shortly after viewing it. Filesharing will not stop and I will not stop supporting it. Companies will either have to accept this or continue to waste large sums of money in courts, which I can see them doing as long as they continue to proffit from court winning.

reply

Jim Dodd

Is ISOhunt down again? I can't seem to get the page to come up.

Thanks,
JD

reply

Zach

agreed, its down currently

reply

David Russell

I downloaded an album from BitTorrent. But being MP3, it sounded garbage on anything other than an MP3 player, so I ended up buying it because it was a good album.

Whereas if I hadn't been able to download the album, I would not have thrown away my money buying the thing on the offchance that it might be good. So my downloading has not LOST the industry any money, it has GAINED it at least 2 or 3 sales this year.

reply

Lava Man

You say "I download to preview. I buy if I like." I say "Bullshit!"

The argument of "previewing" is widely accepted and used by downloader's everywhere. It's like an acceptable reason to do wrong. Kind of like "I have finals coming up in three weeks so the promise I made to get something done next week doesn't count any more."

It's 100 trucks full of bull. I don't believe that most people who download a cd and like the cd end up buying it. I don't believe that out of 56924 completed downloads (so far) of "Hot Fuss" by The Killers, there were 28462 CD sales even though the CD is a great CD.

Ask yourself this: "How many CDs have I downloaded in 2004 & 2005? Out of these, how many do I still have on my computer? Out of these, how many did I buy? If your answer is any less than a 100% of the music you still have on your computer, than you are being a hypocrite by saying you download to preview.

And look at the audacity of people who say that Record Labels & Artists are already making tons of money. Who are you to decide how much money they should make and how they should operate their business? If they have something you want (music) they should be able to decide what they want to charge for it. If you don't want to pay, that's okay. Don't pay. They loose sales and maybe they drop prices. I'm not for $20 per CD but I am for free enterprise.

If you really want to preview a CD for the purpose of BUYING iTunes and plenty of other services offer 30 second clips to decide if you like it. In addition, Napster has an all-you-can-eat package where you can download as much music as you want for $20/month.

There is only one good reason to download music. To straight out rip off record labels and their artists but what does say about you?

PS: SpeNce - It does costs tons to get radio airtime. That's where record labels take the risk and spend big hoping to make big. To minimize their risk, they promote bands and artists that they think will strike a cord with the public. And how do they decide on these bands? They usually find bands who already have developed a following. They are just accelerating the success. Thus bands who can't develop a following get weeded out.

- Lava Man

reply

Anonymous

yes kick there but

reply

David Russell

Lava Man: Actually, if you had read my comment you would see that I DID buy the ones I liked, and I don't know about you but it seems pretty pointless to keep MP3 files that I don't like. So your pro-copywrong attitude sort of falls apart doesn't it?

reply

Lava Man

David,

Think bigger. Think the entire music & entertainment market... including all the people who download and buy and all those who don't buy. I'm not attacking you. I'm speaking about the problem at large.

There have been 56924 downloads of the "Hot Fuss" album by The Killers. Most of those 50,000+ downloads are not for preview purposes. They are not going lead to a sale of any kind.

Sure it may lead to a concert ticket sale but that's like saying I'm going to steal this computer because I'll end up buying the software. Producing a CD and putting together a concert event are two different products and the copyright holders should get paid for both unless THEY decide they want to give away the music files to generate concert sales. This should be a business decision THEY make.

PS: My stance on copyright is driven by the fact that my company is putting a gigantic sum of time, money and energy in developing software that I aim to profit from. If people were able to download the software I am investing to develop as easily and readily as they can music, my entire investment would go down the drain. I would be forced to develop fewer software with less features. People would loose their jobs. Everyone's energy and dreams would go unrewarded. I don't think this is right. It's as wrong as stealing milk from a baby. The issue of music & movie copyright piracy is just as wrong.

- Lava Man

reply

David Russell

So your argument is that a lot of people who download don't go on to buy the music/film etc. Fine, I can accept that, but at least use the correct term. Since we are mainly talking about the USA, where most of the downloading (and extortion by the industry) occurs, the US Penal Code defines piracy as taking control of a ship from its rightful owner on the high seas. As far as I'm aware, even you aren't accusing any filesharers of doing that. The correct terms is copyright infringement.

reply

David Russell

(I would have added this to my comment but obv. you can't edit them)

As for your software company, even if people download it they will not get the full benefit. Why do people even buy software when they can get equal-functionality open source software for free? Because they value the technical support, help guides etc. that you can only get if you buy the software from a company.

Also, copyright infringement is not 'as wrong as stealing milk from a baby', because you do not actually steal anything. If I download a copy of a song, the company which produces that song still owns it. The stores that sell it still have the same number of copies in their posession. I have not taken anything away from anyone therefore it is not stealing. I have infringed the copyright of the song, not stolen it .

reply

Mr. Lava Man

Lol. I can't believe you would call me on the use of the term piracy. LMAO. I'm not even going to reply to that. I'm sure 99% of all those who read my post understood what I meant and did not mistakenly think that I was accusing illegal downloaders of hijacking a ship. :D

As for your assertion that copyright infringement is not stealing, here's my thoughts...

Call me old fashioned but to me a handshake is as good as a contract. Technicalities are almost always pure bullshit. It either is or it isn't. And as for stealing... in my dictionary it is defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you. Downloading a song or a movie that you should not have (because you didn't pay for it) is taking something that does not belong to you. That my friend is classified as stealing in my books.

- Mr. Lava Man

reply

David Russell

Yes but downloading is not 'taking something that doesn't belong to you'. In fact, you're not actually taking anything as the person you get the download from still has the exact file on their computer. If someone gives me permission to copy X number of bytes of their hard drive, then that is not 'taking' anything from anyone. The fact that I have not paid money to a third party with no involvement in the file transfer does not mean that I have 'stolen' anything from them.The crime that occurs is copyright infringement, because they do not have a license to give me a copy of that file.

And as for calling you on 'piracy' being pedantic? Well in a recent court case (I believe it was the Grokster case in one of the lower courts) the judge ordered industry lawyers to stop using the term because it was a pejorative with no meaning related to the case. So I am just sticking to what the courts say.

reply

Mr. Lava Man

I don't think we'll end up agreeing on what exactly is "stealing" but here's my last shot as making my point that downloading without paying is stealing.

Let's say you come up with an idea for a product and you're neighbor comes over. you tell them about your new and exciting idea and that how you've been spending every waking moment working on making this idea work.

You're neighbor goes home, builds the product you were working on and makes millions on it. You're first comment upon finding out what he's been up to will be "He stole my idea."

Nothing physical has been "stolen". You still have your copy of the blueprint. He hasn't taken anything from you except the idea: intellectual property.

Same concept applies to music & movie downloads. It doesnt matter if nothing physical is taken or missing. That's irrelevant.

- Lava Man

reply

Losing money eh?

PLease - lets get this straight. Music isn't the only thing being downloaded off the net. We have movies, games, and software, right? IF i were to download software - it'd be out of shere curiosity to see what it does and why people would buy it. why would i pay 300 something dollars for piece of crap software - Even after the 300 dollar software has been acquired its usually useless garbage. Point is, The company never had my money, nor will they ever. I had no intention of buying it and i have no intention of using it. Most expensive software is bought buy businesses for technical support and the fact that they are a target if someone knew it was stolen. I dont know any consumer that would purchase something so freakin' high. The downloading would've never started if the piece of shit record companies didn't make us buy a cd that costs 10 cents and a booklet that probably cost a buck for 20 bucks.

If the companies want consumer support - the only way i'd pay for a cd now-a-day is if it was under 7 bucks. Plus the music sucks now - i have 2 cds of mp3s on my computer and i downloaded them because i purchased the cd and i didn't feel like sticking it into the cd player anymore. I bought the rights so i can do what i wish right?

Also, if we bought the rights to the music on cassette back in the 80's - are we entitled to download them on our computer? It seems like we would because we didn't steal anything - we bought the cassette, so why should we pay for the cd?

Overall - No one loses money except for the people who make downloading a hobby - in which they probably would have never purchased that many songs in the first place.

Lets face it - who would spend that much for piece of shit music? no one.
Free is the keyword and its what makes us want more - we want free shit.
period.

reply

Zak

Way back in the days poeple sang songs and played musical instuments to entertain, in return they would receive a gratuity from the listeners or they would be payed for a live performance in a bar or club and some would even play because they LOVED to entertain. Technical advances allowed the ability to record the music onto an object(record, tape, cd) and the record industry was born, since then it has grown into a money hungry monster. I beleive the music should be free and each artist have a donation website, I would donate before I'll ever buy another CD. Also, good artists can make lots of money in concerts, and selling there songs to movies and Tv shows.

reply

thisidalreadyinuse

What's next? I know... Google sued as top torrent search site. They have a "filetype:" command after all so we know they made that just so ppl could find copyrighted material. I give it about 3 months. I understand the reasons behind the lawsuits but they seem to be limiting innovation as much as they're protecting intellectual property. However, I can't stand the idea of IP. I'm not that old but I remember when people actually MADE things in this country, now we're just a pathetic and lazy service economy full of weak little legal nerds and whiners. Go do something worth admiration before we all turn into a society of frycooks ruled by a legal system no one understands.

reply

David Russell

Mr. Lava Man. The whole difference between the two is that if someone copies your idea, and sells it for money, that means that you cannot sell it because your neighbour has already done so. However, if I download a music file, or a movie, or a piece of software, that act does not stop the record company, film studio, software publisher etc. from selling it, because I am not providing the same product (an Mp3 off BitTorrent, ed2k etc. contains less than 1/10 as much sound as a CD) and I am not making any money out of it.

reply

anindya biswas

Ha Ha Ha.... This is funny... who the f cares about RIAA. Amarica and RIAA and all the copyright and patent bullshit they can keep with themself. The have no jurisdiction over the whole world. ROCK ON ISOHUNT. Let them what they will. Stay away from amarica... The are all a lot like BUSH.. IQ 51

reply

David Russell

True- anyone who disagrees just take thepiratebay as an example. But I think you're giving Bu$h more credit that he deserves- he must have bribed the examiner to get above single figures :P

reply

Mark Holsten

It is very odd how such large U.S. based companies and organisations seem to have such hard trouble realising that a completely USA based law (in this case the controversial DMCA law) doesn't actually apply to people living in other (perhaps more 'free') countries.

I mean the MPAA know that isohunt.com does not operate out of the USA yet quote a U.S.A law as their main legal backing. Maybe they are going for the effect (of the laW) rather than the content.

reply

IH

Quite a lot of comments here. And nice blog, either WP is getting slicker or this is modified. I'm the developer of isohunt.com, and I wrote the response to the MPAA. Thanks for everyone's support for our position on the matter.

Just want to clarify on some points:

- I don't live in the US, but isohunt.com is hosted in the US. I won't debate whether the US's DMCA is right or whether it applies to us, but copyright is widely implemented in developed nations around the world, and we abide by wishes of copyright owners, when removal requests are made according to our policy. The MPAA (or rather, its 3rd party "agents") made unreasonable demands.

- My interview at Slyck, it outlines my stance and views.

- With the latest US Supreme Court ruling on MGM vs. Grokster, it's become quite clear that BitTorrent would be deemed legal, as it was designed for legal distributions of any large files (OSS software, concert recordings, etc.). Illegal use of it was discouraged as there's no anonymity.

With the internet and P2P, information and media is no longer a scarce commodity. We no longer rely on Big Media for expensive production and distribution. They are losing their grasp as gatekeepers. There will still be content production companies, but the internet is the distribution. Big Media will try to squeeze every penny out of their dying business models, but it is only a matter of time.

P2P is not their problem. The internet is.

reply

Juice

Ok so if p2p 'illegal' file sharing continues and isn't stopped by the MPAA who does it effect the most? What will eventually happen? Will it run right through the movie scene... distibutors suffer first, which then leads to producers - directors - actors, eventually no movies are made. Will this actually happen? Or will they simply lose 2% of their million dollar profits?

'Intellectual Property' keeps getting thrown around in this debate. What a farce that is! How can you have Intellectual property laws (or copyright laws for that matter) and monopoly, oligopoly and price fixing laws under the same legal system. They indirectly conflict with each other.

Anyway back to the point. Should p2p be allowed, should they leave it alone or should they try to put an end to it? Well in the current capitalists society and under capitalists views it should be prevented. These people work hard to make this material and should be rewarded for taking the risk. However like it or not this debates stems back to whether our 'western society' is a well run system. You have quarter of the people stupidly rich from being in a movie that has no benefit to overall society. Half the people in between and the other quarter struggling to even make a living. Yet we allow these stupidly rich people to buy idea's and copyright them so that no-one else is allowed to use them - Making it very very difficult for the average joe to get into a profitable position. No way can this be society as a wholes objective as the money goes into stupid luxury's for a single person instead of furthering the power of the society. Thats why I am all for P2P and torrents. I am yet to see a good arguement that argues that it should NOT exist because it is a detriment to our overall society, instead all the arguements try to suggest that it is against our society but in fact base themselves on individual greed - and that someone made the movie, game, tv show etc and deserve to be rich themselves, and further seperate the gap between rich, average and poor. It is my view that P2P helps bridge the gap, and maybe will divert the flow of wealth towards something that is actually a benefit to us as humans. I am not saying that it would be better if movies didn't exist, everyone loves a good movie, and I too own many movies. Some I wish I didn't pay for. I really don't think p2p will kill the movie or game developers, just simply rob them of some wealth that they do not need anyway. Stop producing movies with the view of a quick profit (most sequels with support of their originals good name) and actually put some effort in and make a quality flick and sell it at a reasonable price and we will be happy to pay for it. Until then I'll continue to download them or burn them from a mates copy before I risk shelling out money for a dud. But right now the law has as much right to prevent p2p file sharing as they do to prevent you playing your purchased copy of fight club in a dvd player other than your own.

reply

sacul

the mpaa are ignorant, don't they realise that if they are able to shut isohunt down like they did to lokitorrent, that like 3 or 4 will spring up in it's place.

and nowadays pretty much everything we do is illegal.
storing music on computers or mp3 players such as ipods is illegal. why create them then? can they answer that, probably no.

reply

BeeBee

Lets get back to basics here. You buy a product that says it's better than sex.
Turns out it isn't. You get your money back right ?
Doesn't quite do what it says on the tin ? Standard consumer right last time i looked. Money back, simple as that. it does not do what they said it would do.
you watch a film that will 'rock your socks off, it's so funny' or 'hilarious and outrageous'.
turns out it's more boring than watching paint dry.
do you get your money back like any other product on the market after paying a fortune to watch this dribble at the local picture house ????
no. end of story. you paid to watch it. that's it. doesn't matter if it's the worst dribble you have ever come across. you will NOT get your money back.
why not ? it didn't do what it said on the tin. if it was hair clippers that didn't actually cut hair...
it didn't make me laugh.
it was as funny as my mother dying in my arms on christmas day !
but i'll never ever get my money back because i have that film in my memory and therefore not to pay is theft. yes i could possibly recall the entire film to someone and hence that would be intlectual theft...
i have seen it and therefor i am stuck with it.
just check out your rights next time you buy a product, and see if you can take it back if it doesn't do what it says on the tin........
big thumbs up to downloading films. saved me a fortune buying crap that didn't make me feel the way they said it would......

reply

{V}urdoc

I read a lot of the posts on this page and got bored after a while...

The way I look at it is this. If you own the original product you are well within your right to make a backup, be it ripping an mp3 or duplicating a DVD, if you decide to share that data with people via p2p so what? Whats the difference between that and lending a friend a CD or DVD (which if you look at copyright laws is also illegal) How many people have been prosecuted for that? Yes I download MP3's and movies 99.9% of the time I have already seen the movie at the cinema or I intend to buy it when it is eventually relaeased on DVD (at an extortionate price).

My main downloads however are TV shows. Is sky being prosecuted for releasing hardware that allows you to record TV programs direct to a hard drive? How many VCR manufacturers have been put out of business for providing the ability to record shows to VHS?

I say when the mpaa can come forward with a figure as to how much the industry is losing as a result of file sharing then they can look at people like IsoHunt and torrent sites for some kind of remuneration, until that point all "losses" are purely speculation.

reply

Arnold

I've downloaded quite a few things, and have kept my morals alive. A few points.

* Downloading takes time. In the "now" world of today, most of us aren't willing to say "Oh, I want that movie. I'll just wait a week [or more] and watch it then." The machine is made to make us want to watch it immediately.
* Quality of releases is usually low. Until a DVD release comes out, the movie really isn't "all that." So we go to the theatre, maybe several times if we loved it, and just use the low-quality copy for movies we can't afford, or if going to watch Star Wars 20x seems crazy.
* I know a lot of people who would have rented some movie if I didn't have it on my server. This means that Blockbuster has probably lost a lot of money here. (That said I've single-handedly kept the local store - of whom the owners are good friends - afloat with how many movies I've rented.)
* Most people have no moral code wrt. piracy. eg: my roommate downloaded a copy of the game Darwinia after I showed him the demo. He uses a laptop, and most games won't run without Pixel Shaders, so he was quite happy with it (the first game in a long time). He never thought to buy it, and that Introversion is a small company [of 3 employees], and have had financial trouble, just didn't bother him.
* Sometimes downloads make sales. I bought Earth 2150 and all it's expansion packs, just because I found it fun. Given my usual lack of interest in games, if it weren't for the download, I never would have bought them.
* If I made something, I wouldn't want it given away to a bunch of whiners who have no respect for the work involved (most downloaders). If they downloaded it and saw the work for what it was, that's not nearly as bad as if they just complained. Just as illegal, but no longer an insult.
* Theivery is a common response for people. We (the media, the people) brainwash capitalism into the masses and then complain when they are greedy. Then we do the typical capitalism move - pay the CEO 5x severance pay, fire the workers. That's theft, in it's own way - it's just not illegal.
* Those of us who understand the moral dillema and try to be fair, good citizens, supportive, and benfitial to the economy (understanding that there is only a limited amout of money and we should pay the best performers) are still acting illegally.

So who looses money? Ultimately everyone. It's just how the economy works. But that a percentage of the populous will steal is a given. That's factored in. The problem with the MPAA is the same as the problems with Sunday shopping. If I spend 30$ a day, 6 days a week getting what I need, will I spend another 30$ on Sunday? No, instead I'll spend $25 a day, 7 days a week. That's how they view it, in the "let's make a week longer so we get more money in a week," never mind that it's still the same amount. But this is a common opinion in business. It's simple, it's like bean-counting. [Things get more complicated when you consider that I am now being paid to work an extra day and therefore have more money to spend, but ultimately it will be spent elsewhere, as my needs have not suddenly increased.]

Ultimately the economy will still keep working if we act according to moral code. It might be hard to predict, but isn't that already the case?

Anyone who is curious, I'm 21, a college student (science major, so this is not my expertise), and Canadian. I've been illegally swapping digital bits since I first connected to a BBS (age 12). As a result, my beliefs and opinions may still be immature, if not biased. But at least I'm not American. *that's a joke to American's who don't "get" their neighbours.*

reply

dave

A few comments on the things I've heard... Personally I download pirated ***t all the time, I don't care...

Quote: "A CD should not cost me £20.$40, the CD costs little under 5 pence to make, on average around 30 pence per copy of the CD that would add up to pay for the design costs of the covers and art. 35 pence an album should cost. Then you take into account the cost of paying the artists £4 per CD. I would be happy to pay £4.35p for a CD, but instead, I have to pay £20 for a double disc. Insanity."

A common theme among a few posts indicates that there are many seemingly intelligent people who think that product pricing is based on production costs, i.e. the product costs 5 bucks for them to make therefor it should cost me only slightly more than this... this is not how the world works... Price is set based on supply and demand... its simple mathematics... you set the price to maximize your profit. If a CD costs 20 bucks, its because thats what the supply/demand graph TOLD them to price it at. If they arbitrarily increase OR decrease the price that the mathematics tell them is correct, they will certainly lose profit... So the argument that lowering the price of a CD, arbitrarily, causes more people to buy it is correct, but this does not mean that profit will not suffer... IT WILL! Prices are set methodically. So the next time you think a movie star is making too much money, because you don't like them, and they don't NEED that much money, YOU ARE WRONG. If it was too much money than the filmmakers wouldn't offer that much... If CD's aren't really worth 15 or 20 bucks, then sales and profit would suffer, and the business (if they care to stay in business) would lower their prices to the correct valuation... Nobody has to buy them, but many do. Now, every individual sets their own values on certain items, to decide whether they will buy it or not.. I can understand that people don't want to pay 15 or 20 bucks for a CD, hell, if people had their way, they would never have to pay for anything.. But this doesn't mean that pricing a CD at 20 bucks is somehow immoral. If its truly overpriced, then profit WILL be lost. Thats what stabilizes prices..

Quote: "storing music on computers or mp3 players such as ipods is illegal"

No, its not, that's just a stupid statement

Couple points: Many of you say that if CDs and movies were priced lower, that you would buy them. I say you are a downright liar.

Many say that if you download something and like it, you buy it. You MAY be telling the truth, you may not be, but you constitute a VERY VERY VERY minute percentage of downloaders. The overwhelming majority of illegal downloads are by people who want to get it for free, not "preview it".

Please note, I'm not saying you should stop downloading stuff, because I have probably downloaded many thousands of dollars worth of copyrighted material, and I care if I'm breaking the law, I won't be caught... I'm just commenting on certain arguments that were made...

So let's stop lying to ourselves... we want free s**t because we are selfish. I'll admit it, but I don't expect nor ask that companies lower their prices because some software pirate says its too much. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard... shut the f*ck up! They dont care if you dont buy it, because plenty of OTHER people ARE buying it...

Quote: "The way I look at it is this. If you own the original product you are well within your right to make a backup, be it ripping an mp3 or duplicating a DVD, if you decide to share that data with people via p2p so what? Whats the difference between that and lending a friend a CD or DVD (which if you look at copyright laws is also illegal) How many people have been prosecuted for that? Yes I download MP3's and movies 99.9% of the time I have already seen the movie at the cinema or I intend to buy it when it is eventually relaeased on DVD (at an extortionate price)."

You are allowed to make a personal backup copy. You are not allowed (if you are subject to US laws) to give that backup to your friend or let people copy it over the internet. You ARE allowed to lend a CD or DVD to a friend or give it away for that matter. Oh yeah, usually when people use stats like 99.9% it came from their ass. And it doesn't matter at all WHY you are infringing a copyright, its the act that is illegal, not your intentions.

I agree with copyright laws, but it doesn't mean I have to abide by them ;)
Happy downloading!

reply

dave

"Whats the difference between that and lending a friend a CD or DVD (which if you look at copyright laws is also illegal) How many people have been prosecuted for that?"

Assuming you made an error and meant to say giving your friend a copy (lending a CD is perfectly legal as far as I know) the reason nobody get's prosecuted for giving a friend a copy is (1) nobody gets caught, (2) companies have to prioritize their lawsuits.. they don't give a s**t that you gave your friend a copy, eventhough it violates their copyrights. It is an extremely minor case. They want to use their money to file lawsuits that they believe will actually help slow piracy.

reply

fdessvese

I think the MPAA is being really silly here. Do they plan on selling 700mb versions of their movies? What if people like George Lucas say NO? Does the MPAA know what a 700mb movie would look and sound like on a TV? Pretty crappy quality I think, and not worth their time, effort or money.

It would seem the MPAA got to Niteshdw's sci-fi torrent site. They've got their moderators acting like MPAA hoodlums, threatening members of their own site just to make the MPAA happy. One of the site's moderators went so far as to threaten one of their members via a PM that his/her IP address would be released for MPAA use. It's a shame to see such a great torrent and forum site go down that way. The MPAA dosen't even have to do anything anymore, the moderators for that site are doing their dirty work.

reply

Shin

For the arguement that Film makers do need the money. Wrong. Tom Cruise does not NEED $6 million for doing a film. At all. Ever. I can't respect that.

Record companies do NOT need the majority of the money from the CD. You bring the factors of supply and demand into this. If the demand is higher the price will go up to cut down the demand, this usually happens whena product isn't well stocked. I find it highly unlikely a CD that costs £0.50p to burn will be in short supply. Being that the recordind is paid for, the covers are printed and everything is paid up. I find it highly unlikely that they need to charge doube the amount. In my post, I said £4.35p as an example. For that I'm including production costs of CD art and sleaves. Recording. Paying an artist so he/she can eat. Paying the bands management. That would be included in the cost. Why should the record company get double thier costs? I think that is pathetically greedy. Thus it is the fault of such companies that the consumer is turning towards the substitute products, free downloading.

Why should I pay double the cost of somthing, when;

a) It might be shit?

b) It's over priced, usually overrated and over produced.

I am all for buying DVD's. I love getting films. I downloaded Full Metal Jacket, then bought it next time I saw it in town. Fair be it, not every consumer is as generous as me to pay for something I already have.

I like buying CD's. Preferably CD's from small bands at local gigs for a reasonable price. Last EP I bought was £3 and had 5 tracks on it. The money lined the bands pocket. Telling me I can't download an album to listen to it before I buy it is like tellng me I can't listen to the band at a show, until I've bought a CD

Anyways, my point is and always will be this; They do not need to charge us so much for their products. You will find that if they lower prices, people will have the same disposable income, but slightly more flexability with that. If I have £20 and prechanges 2 CD's I like cost £14 each, I can only buy one CD, which leaves me skint and pissed off. If they changed things so a CD cost £10, I could buy 2 CD's, be skint, but mentally feeling better off. the MPAA aren't treating us like people with feelings, minds, emotions, directives and progatives. We have needs and our needs outline that we do not want to pay you motherfuckers double ona product, just because that house in the Bahamas is calling your name. I'd like to save some money for a house like that too.

Capitalism has failed this Western world. Communism would be better.

reply

XY

This *is* capitalism. We're going to the lowest-cost provider.

reply

lynn

i agree they are being silly...provide the damn list already then

reply

mingo

no represtation, no taxation, we don't have any represtation in MPAA to force it drop its price anyway...
the worst thing about MPAA and others is, they stlll charge $20 for a CD in third world nations which average income is far less... no wonder the piracy rate is so high...
monopolies...they even seek permanent antitrust exemption

reply

Plain and Simple

Everyone simply seems to be missing the point... True there are a lot of individuals that take advantage of the P2P sharing system by distributing software with activation methods, MP3 audio, Movies, Games and so much more, but this is not the fault of the P2P network it was basically designed to share content from one user to another BEFORE anyone ever heard of intellectual property!
It is really simple... I go to the store and purchase a cd or dvd (it may contain a movie, game or etc.) I have also purchase a license to use this in compliance with the companies wishes. This is known as a CONTRACT.
I do have the right to make an archival copy (in the event the original ever fails, and believe it or not cds and dvds DO NOT last forever!!) I have the right to install and use... I have the right to remove the software if I do not like it. I can resell it (the original copy) because I purchased it. [If you by a car or anything else do you not have the right to resell it at a later time?] Just look on E-bay!!! I have the right to give it away!!! Same philosophy of the previous sentence.
What is illegal is to give away or sell the actual copies...
Plain and simple both ends of this last arrangement is illegal and both parties are committing a violating (yes, USA law) and the parties are the ones to be held accountable for their actions...
The MPAA and RIAA are going after the wrong people... the site has no control over what people share and the legality, thereof? (Yes, they could filter... but why should they, they are not at fault?) And to go after each individual is the only way to do what THEY want effectively. Sting the source and destination of the "illegal file" , but to do this they would also have to follow USA law and be able to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that an infringement occurred, what the infringement was, its $ value, and who the perpetrator of the criminal offense was.
Obviously, this is an overwhelming task for THEM, and would incur an almost endless amount of finance to pull off... so they go after a scapegoat. THIS in legal terminology would be known as FRIVOLOUS (and of course the fact that the ones -ISOHUNT- that they attack live outside the legal jurisdiction what they are doing is just simply laughable and ridiculous)
To sum it up, I could threaten anyone...
But do the threats mean anything if I cannot back them up? NO!
LONG LIVE ISOHUNT and all the other bit torrent search sites -- dont let these idiots bully you.
When all is said and done... all your site does is tell people where to find something of interest.
That would be like me getting arrested and charged for telling a friend or acquaintenance where to locate a good deal... and thats just plain stupid.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO FREEDOM!

reply

Plain and Simple

P2P is Legal...
Isohunt is doing absolutely nothing illegal by displaying any and all torrent files. The MPAA and RIAA are just not very enlightened. The torrent IS NOT the actual download file, it is a non-copyrighted (at least I haven't heard of anyone copyrighting a torrent file yet!) and therefore 100% legal. The problem however lies in the fact that it points the way to a possibly illegal file...
OK, an analogy would be...
I am out looking for a car (a nice car) and I find a carlot that is giving away free automobiles (yeah, I know not very realistic, but...) the thing is that giving away free autos is illegal, (because the manufacturer does not make money, no taxes are paid, etc.) Well I write down how and where to find this place of business on a piece of paper (I never actually recieve a car, BTW) and and I begin telling ALL my friends...
OK, the only people who have committed a crime in this case is the individuals who take advantage of this opportunity... and the carlot operator.
The person who supplied the info (as long a he informs the friends that actually getting an auto is illegal) has committed absolutely NO CRIME.

The following is a definition of torrents...

Definition: In peer-to-peer networking, Bit Torrents are small text files. A torrent contains the location of data files that can be download from the Bit Torrent peer to peer network. The torrent file also contains some identifying information about P2P files.
Torrent files can be found on numerous Web sites. Bit Torrents can be loaded into the BitTorrent P2P client to initiate the actual download. When saved on a computer they also serve as bookmarks to available files, for future reference.

The Bit Torrent P2P network has become extremely popular for sharing television and movie video files. Torrents makes it possible to search for these very large files while using minimal network bandwidth. Torrents conserve bandwidth on the Bit Torrent network for the actual file swapping itself.
***********************************************
FIGHT Those Stupid B@st@rds ISOHUNT, knowledge is POWER.
(and when it comes to the MPAA and RIAA ignorance is bliss!!)
They have absolutely no right to target YOU to achieve their goal no matter how desperate their attempts to stop copyright infringement... this in itself is a crime on their part (although not enforceable)!!! Wrongful prosecution.

reply

Plain and Simple

REMEMBER THE SALEM WITCH HUNTS. A group of individuals targetted innocent people with accussations that could not be substantiated (not sanely, anyways)... but never-the-less the innocent people were executed anyway!!!

STOP being witch-hunters MPAA and RIAA... if you want to prosecute, go after the "actual" guilty parties!!!!

reply

Plain and Simple

Here is one of their letters--- just to remind you.

As we have said repeatedly, a significant amount of copyright infringement is occurring as a result of your website and tracker. Apart from the knowledge you have by virtue of your day to day operation of the site and server, we have put you on notice that the infringement is occurring. The list of representative works that was attached to our notice letter was merely a sample of the infringement occurring on your site. We have requested that you stop the infringing conduct immediately. That you have automated the process of adding torrents to your website is not a defense. You have the ability to review torrents before posting them. You also have the ability to search your website and review the torrents that are already being distributed. There should be little doubt, for example, that Oceans Twelve which is a torrent offered on your site is copyrighted and should not be distributed. A copyright holder is not obliged to monitor all the websites and the servers around the world to police and protect each and every work from those who would choose to close their eyes to ongoing infringement. It is incumbent on you to distribute only those torrents that correspond to files that you know are authorized to be distributed.

********************************************************
The first sentence is TRUE. Second sentence why notify you... you are not distributing the actual files that ARE copyrighted? Third sentence is completely FALSE, no infringements are occurring through the site itself!!! Fourth sentence is obviously TRUE, but actually ridiculous, since the site does not actually distribute the files in question!
The next sentence is just irrelevant, there is no law against automation, and again the torrents ARE NOT the copyrighted material! Sixth sentence, yes, isohunt may have the ability to review torrents, but the torrents themselves are not copyrights of MPAA or RIAA and therefore none of your actual concern.Seventh statement -- Yes, that is what ISOHUNT's purpose is - it is after all a search engine and a very nice one at that!
Woah Nelly!!! The next sentence is ABSOLUTELY and UNDENIABLY --- FALSE,FALSE,FALSE --- The MOVIE "Ocean's Twelve" is copyrighted, the torrent however IS NOT!! BIG DIFFERENCE!
The next sentence is irrelevant as ISOHUNT is not committing any illegal act whatsoever.Why should they be policed?????
And lastly, WHO ARE THEY to tell ISOHUNT what to distribute... they do not, and I reiterate, DO NOT hold copyrights on the torrent files and therefore have absolutely no right to demand how, when, or where such files are distributed...

Your Honor... I rest my case!

reply

Plain and Simple

BTW, they make the distinction clear in that final sentence. They KNOW the difference in the two and still they attack an innocent bystander. Torrents are not the copyrighted files themselves and vice-versa. It is a shame that even though they know this... they continue to harass isohunt. (Isn't there a LAW against HARASSMENT?????????) Who is the criminal here?

reply

John Doe

All these arguements are quite intersting. But I wonder where all this is leading. There are TWO tools in use here when a person (me you anyone) downloads a movie or album, in this case anyway.
1. Some kind of P2P filesharing system (Im fairly new to all this so I wont pretend I know how they work
2. Is the ISP which provides the person with access to the P2P system in the first place.

If ISOHUNT is committing a crime by providing the general public with a tool to commit a crime, (and piracy IS a crime) as is the claim of the MPAA, then the next logical conclusion after they have trampled on ISOHUNT and all the others is to claim that the ISPs commit the same crime by acting as the catalyst for the whole thing. Because we all know that as long as you allow people levels of communication possibilities offered on the internet, they WILL find a way to share any kind of information they want to.
Then it becomes an arguement not for the rights of the artists and those who invest in them, but an arguement about the basic freedoms of every citizen of the world. The existance of the internet has become a thorn in the side of the entertainment industry because it is the only place where people are really free to be what they want.... An arsehole who steals the work and innovation of people probably greater than them OR A responsible person who is willing to pay for the pleasure of the entertainment.
There must be room for both.
The entertainment industry, the music industry in particular, suffers only because of its own ignorace of opportunities offered by the internet. These industries are dinosaurs and the dinosars got what was coming to them

reply

Julio Cezar Chavez

Piracy has a financial effect similar to a boycott. Funny thing is, with a boycott, it drives the prices of goods down. Yet the "Industry" raises its prices in response to piracy...They claim piracy costs them so much money. Really, it costs little more than a boycott would. The added cost really exists only in litigation. Can't blame it on anti-piracy R&D. If it was a boycott, there'd be a greater focus on marketing R&D. Just thought I'd mention it.

Why do the big guys pick on ISOHunt and the like? Only because they're a focal point for license breaking data pirates. If they can pay 10k in intimidating a site to shut down, well, that's much cheaper than taking on each and every one of the 200,000 connected users leeching a copy of Ocean's Eleven at 5k per person.

MPAA and their peers are not ignorant to this fact. They know FULL WELL they have no legal grounds against ISOHunt. But if they play their cards just right they just might have a chance at scaring the bejesus out of torrent sites to the extent they shut their doors. Wouldn't that make things less convenient for the "Oooh, BitCommet, what's this do?" Homer Simpson types. Piracy will then fall back to the background of hardcore data disseminators who do their thing cuz it's a bag of kicks, or cuz "It's like, the principle of the whole institution, ya dig?"

Will MPAA and the ilk desist from their harrasment? Hell no! They're biding their time, waiting for the courts of the world to finally sit down and define piracy (making litigation efficient and worthwhile), etc, or for the gov't's to finally directly oversee Internet data distribution (whereby taxes alone will foot the bill for your court case).

End. You are dismissed. Well except for the Canadians...

To all you fucking Canucks. Don't think I don't know about your plan to invade the U.S. Oh yeah, I know ALL about it. You say "They outsource all their jobs to India, soon they'll do it with their military! When they do, BAM, we invade!!" Well, I got news fer you, America doesn't trust brown people from anywhere outside our continent.

Ok, just kidding, I love Canadians. Yup, even the ones that speak French. Canada, home of the other white meat...All hail your emporer!!!..........or whatever the hell you people have running that crazy circle of funky kicks up there.

reply

anonymous capitalist

Hey all you neo-leftwing internet geeks. Maybe we should all find girlfriends off the "net" too. Why should Gary Fung get any of my hard earned money either, because he is a genius with computers? You are now getting sucked into the cyber vortex, proud that you can consume without spending. This could be the future when no one has to work in order to survive. The film indusry provides jobs, which many of you may not have, not just to Tom Criuse but millions of average joes like us. And in Vancouver, if you you are not glued to a keyboard, you may be lucky enough to work in the film or entertainment industry. And why would I want to watch a deadbeats sad attempt at filmmaking? Sure Hollywood pumps out formula crap to non-thinkers, so why download the crap at all? But then you are willing to go see a "well done" movie in the theaters, seems like a double standard. Let's face it, can we really do what we love to do for free? I'm sure Mr. Fung would love to have Bill Gateses money and power.

reply

Another idiot

As I read these posts I had the feeling a lot of people were missing the point; isohunt is NOT about downloading copyrighted work, it's about SHARING works to which you OWN the copyright YOURSELVES.
If you think the net exists solely to provide you with pirated movies,... may you be busted.
I don't know a lot about MPAA but they sound pretty reasonable compared to Belgian SABAM, a company representing music artists and other copyright holders. In Belgium it is forbidden to play a movie or music in public, to which you don't hold the rights. If you do hold the rights, you must still pay to sabam what is called a "reasonable fee" because you probably used a note or two, or even a few words, that accidentially can be found in their portfolio. Now what is playing such a work in public? Simply; if anyone else can hear it it's public; If in Belgium you've got a walkman/discman/ipod on your head, and it's loud anough for the guy sitting next to you on the train to hear it, you're violating copyrights. If your 5 year old kids start singing the last song from their favourite band; that's piracy. And I didn't make this up. SABAM agents come illegally onto private properties under the pretext that you may be playing their music. Which according to Belgian law, strangely suddenly becomes legal then. Even at your own wedding in your own garden it is forbidden to play your favourite SD, legally bought in the store at full price (if you have other people at your wedding, which I think most people do).
Point is those so-called "copyright-protection" companies are businesses, extortion-offices, exercising mafia practices; To the artists they say; "pay us money, and we'll protect you". If the artist doesn't pay, they 'll make sure he can't perform his art anymore.
If an artist sued someone for stealing his work, I could respect that, but these companies wield so-much money it's almost impossible to win from them, even if you're right.

reply

Sucker

Google has a lot of copyrighted images on
its searches - I know, lets sue Google!

reply

trix

Elliott Back wrote: "Come on guys. The theoretical underpinnings of open information and ethical p2p rest on the positive ideas of share and share alike, as well as the assumption that p2p doesnt directly deprive artists of earnings. Once you start talking about p2p as if its a vehicle to steal $$$$ from artists, studios, producers, et cetera, your claims lose all legitimacy!"

I must disagree with you here. The theoretical underpinnings may rest on those ideas for SOME, but not for all.
My claims hold full legitimacy until I believe them no longer.
I can only speak for myself, and I use p2p not quite as a vehicle to steal money from artists, but simply for the ability to spend my very hard earned money on the art that I deem worthy of that money. The way I see it, anyone can look a picture some artist painted before they buy it, they get full effect from that picture, THEN decide whether owning that peice of art is worth the price being charged for it. That is business. I would never buy a painting that the artist keeps covered up, or only shows me a small corner of, until I've already paid for it.
So using the same logic, I would never buy a movie of unknown value and quality (ARTISTIC quality I mean, not cam vs dvd) unless I had a chance to preview it first. And not just a corner or sample of it, I want to know, fully, what it is I am paying for. Now if I had not the choice I would probably own far less DVD's, but since I can download every movie that looks even remotely interesting and see it, for free, thanks to p2p, I can see many ones I might not have otherwise even heard of, judge it worthy (or not), and go out and buy it (or not).
Thus, my use of p2p (and for my own reasons), results in my *increased* spending on good movies and music that deserve the cash I spend. Not only that, my money is no longer rewarding nothing but the advertising agency, but instead acting as my vote on what movies were worth the making. Without the ability to preview the entire movie for free, the only thing I could go on is the advertising, so those lesser known gems with little advertising would never have gotten my cash. Like Donnie Darko (of which I own the directors cut DVD, two posters, a T-Shirt, and a bumper sticker), and Requiem for a Dream, and many others, that I heard about through the bittorrent site I am currently a member of.

Basically, I believe that in the end p2p will only encourage the making of good quality movies, and discourage alot of the trash that gets fostered off on the masses and makes unearned millions through pure advertising. Who hasn't seen ads and posters for a movie that made it look great, only to pay to see it in some form and discover the ads detailed the only remotely interesting parts of the movie, and the rest of it was boring monotony. A movie that is good enough to be worth buying, WILL be bought. Who hasn't seen a movie in theatres that was so good you HAD to go get the DVD just to own it and have it in your collection? And to show to friends, of course. Sure I could burn a dvdr of the movie, but there's a world of difference between sitting with a group of friends to show them this great movie, and popping in a dvdr, or grabbing the Directors Cut box and popping THAT in.

reply

zer0C0ol

Well we all remember the recording songs off the radio crisis of the eighties, nearly bankrupted the entire global economy, it did on its arse.
Quote " You have the ability to review torrents before posting them. you also have the ability to search your website and remove the torrents already being distributed" MPAA.
My response to that MPAA is you have the ability to kiss my fat ass but i dont write you letters about it. P2P is here to stay, get over it and figure out some other way to stuff your fat wallets.

reply

xoki

I'm hearing alot about Americans and such but i disagree with these assumptions completely. Situations like this have nothing to do with nationality, creed or race. The original ethics of P2P is very much based on the "share and share alike" idea. Wich is a proposal free of such a short sighted boundary. While i agree on the greed of "the haves" that's not the current standing of the present argument.

The point is Isohunt is has a crapload of legal sharing capabilities. It's not about stealing... it's about sharing. Once you taint your point of view with vulgarities, taunts and insults you diminish any point you had to represent, valid or not.

reply

Rocka

the ipod and all the legal mp3/download sites out there produce millions of dollers wich should be enough to let ppl share. Qhat P2P does is stop everything from dissapearing. Rare and hard to find songs n movies are now more accessible. Old classic games are now becoming popular again and ppl can play there favs again without hunting forever. Old ppl can now be assured they can wtch classics that they havnt seen since they were a kid. Look what its doing. Why does everyting have to revolve around money. I want to make sure my kids dont have to watch trash on T.V and instead the classic cartoons i grew up on that u cant find anymore that might have been ripped of old BETA tapes. All we ask is for you harsh ppl to think.

reply

Graham

I think a lot of you have misconceptions on what is what when it comes to P2P filesharing so I will cut to the chase.

Facts: Downloading music is illegal in an ethical sense not in a fiscal sense. Ethically downloading music is stealing from the artist because in essence you have not given anything to the specified artist to recieve what said artist has produced for the general public. A pack of twenty blank CD's costs on average twenty one canadian dollars so per blank CD is one canadian dollar and five cents. HOWEVER mass produced shipments to american recording companies costs on average one hundred and 50 canadian dollars for upwards of fivehundred blank CD's so as you can see the cost dramatically drops to one penny. When an artist goes platinum he has sold one million full length albums. So if the entire P2P community (estimated of upwards of 100million worldwide users) were to download a platinum album with every song on it then the amount of money lost from the recording industry is one hundred thousand USD. That seems rather high but this is merely the cost lost from the purchase of the CD . The selling price for most full length albums is twenty two USD. that is a profit of twenty one dollars and ninety nine cents USD. then there are subsequent costs the artist must pay to the recording industry, company , engineers whom produced the album, and obviously in todays age of musicians their clearly underpaid lyricist. This takes that $21.99 profit for the artist to a guesstimated profit to the artist of 5.99. So again lets look at the greatly exaggerated figure 100 million worldwide downloaders download one artists album simultaneously would eliminate the artists profit of 500.99 million USD to the amount of zero USD. of course this figure hasnt taken into consideration of the population of the world that purchase the album which restores the artists profit to 100 million dollars. This is a grossly overinflated figure due to the assumption that half of the US has downloaded the song illegally and that half the US has downloaded the song legally, along with the other millions of people who buy or download the song on the planet. if there were 100 million people on the planet who all downloaded the music then the artist would never profit but the population of the planet far exceeds the mere 100 million downloaders.
A great ally to artists is the try and buy method; out of every5 people i have asked i found that 3 out of the 5 downloaded music to test it out before buying deleting it from their computer after. Though i only talked to 50 people that means that 30 of those people who downloaded the music also bought the same music they downloaded. so lets also apply this new figure to figure one . this reduces the 100 million users to 300000 users who download but dont buy afterwards. that means they steal a MINUTE amount of 30000 dollars USD from the cost to purchase CD's and even more astounding is that under 1 million dollars USD is stolent from artists. even after adding together bost costs it still fails to reach the million dollar USD mark. where as the profit just got a multiplication of 700000 users who download to try and then buy. Impressive for the artist EVEN IF that one million was stolen from me i wouldnt complain because i was still attracting 100.7 people to buy my music.

The amount of content available VIA bittorrent search engines is nearly ENDLESS. some of the hardest to find content is easily downloaded at the click of a button, even unreleased tracks that the artist had no intention of selling are on some of the websites. On multiple occasions before i downloaded some of the content i wanted i Googled it to see if perhaps i could find it on Ebay or amazon, only to discover that on the wonderful world wide web you can not purchase some content and that it is only available via P2P. Well that raises a host of questions such as. if i cant buy it how did it end up on a P2P server?. Insiders often make available content that can not be purchased on P2P servers. A blatant case of this insiderism is the availability of MICROSOFT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL EDITION 2007 BETA VERSION 2. it clearly isn purchasable yet is readily available on several P2P sites. Music that is rare is readily available such as Metric an underground Rock group whose albums are as rare as Osama Bin Laden sitings. On top of all this over priced programs are readily available from people who simply rip their origional CD's to a torrent file. In fact with all the P2P services available as of now Almost ANY music that you could possibly desire is only a button click away. some of the hardest to find files legally are nothing more than a few keyword searches clicks and patience. it is estimated that over two thirds of all the music is indexed on P2P servers. If these such servers were to cease in existence thousands of unfindable material would be erased from history.

THE BIGGEST REASON THAT THE MPAA AND THE RIAA are on the offensive against P2P is that the public has found a better way to distribute anything imaginable faster than any single one of the bigwigs in corporate america. In fact the MPAA AND RIAA have taken this as a personal hit on their integrity and intelligence. How in the world would the MPAA be able to exist if every single person in the world could produce edit and distribute their productions for nothing on the internet. It is simply cost ineffective to allow the public to have their own personal distribution method that is not government controlled nor corporate controlled. The MPAA is threatened and defending themselves with the full weight of the USA government however they are violationg freespeech and privacy with these inscessent claims of feveraged suing of any one or thing in their path. THE MPAA AND THE RIAA are only corrupt government institutions that have had their time but are now becoming increasingly unneeded. With this new system of distribution the corporations should be rejoicing at this incredible method however as most outdated institutions do they do as well which is attack the infiltrator of their turf. In a sense you can simplify this entire legal battle between two outdated us institutions who can't handle not being the only ones on the block. It is time to fight fro freedom and internet privacy and a REWORKED COPYRIGHT SYSTEM. what ever happened to producing music because you want to. why should the world be forced by one countries perogatives and laws to purchase overpriced subpar content from movie producers and musicians. avergae CD prices are around 21.99 USD average DVD prices are 42.99 USD average video games PC and Console are 70.99 USD microsofts overdue subpar programs are on average 400.00 USD . Why should the people on this planet be subject to such inflated prices obviously gouged by the producers of said content. this is the fight of freedom and crushing the system that has for so long tried to crush us.

reply

Graham

when people employ the try and buy method then people start to spend money on content that they have deemed worthy instead of spending it on garbage the MPAA AND THE RIAA have deemed worthy. alot of new music has failed to hold the attention of anyone because of the poor quality of the talent opf the artist. the same goes for the movie industry . most of the msuic we all know and love from before the turn of 2000 has been overpriced on ebay and hard to find at any store. the only other source is P2P keeping alive the music that would be oh so hard to find otherwise. The MPAA AND THE RIAA are threatened by this because they make no money on artists that no longer produce music so the downloading of said music leads to something unprofitable to the MPAA AND RIAA because the artist has almost already been paid triple for their music due to the fact that P2P did not exist before 1995. movies are a different story because of the vast availability of them in rent out stores and stores such as futureshop. all in all P2P barely dents the economy of media where as the MPAA AND THE RIAA make it out as if 2 thirds the worlds populations steal everyones music. share for one share for all

reply

Graham

LONG LIVE THE TORRENT COMMUNITY.

reply

Brian

The one thing people are missing about musical artists is that they don't get paid to make CDs. When a band signs a record deal the record company lends the band the money required to make the album. This money is paid back by profits from the CDs. Sometimes it can take releasing numerous albums to even pay off the first album. With actors, say Tom Cruise, he gets paid to make a movie, up front. Of course, the big pay out can be when artists get more coverage from the internet and people actually go see them live (unless of course they download the bootleg instead).

reply

Balls

I feel that the mpaa is just trying to finally block all the bootlegged movies out there, even though we have been bootlegging movies since Colecovision was out. I say that Isohunt should fight it out. the mpaa is bitching about why isohunt doesn't block its movies, when isohunt doesn't have a complete list to block off certain titles that my or may not yet be available for transfer. As far as I see it Isohunt has been complying, its the mpaa that doesn't want to move it's lazy ass to get a thourough list of its titles. They simply don't want to go through the trouble...or they don't feel obligated to do it. Personally, I say that they deserve to have their movies bootlegged...if they don't want to cooperate with Isohunt, then it is just for their precious movies to be transferred to a million homes and then be burned on 10 million dvd-r's.

reply

toastman

the technology to download copyrighted material has been around for 25 years now and i don't see any starving artists walking the streets yet! Are we to believe that mel gibson is hurting from people dl'ing passion of the christ???Half a billion and counting ...How much money do the producers of films need exactly??? Maybe if it didn't cost me $100 to take my famliy to the theatre i would feel sympathy but the fact remains that the large corporations have gouged the consumer for the last 50 years and now it is thier turn to Be gouged,I say how do you like it???? We also forget that 80% of the world population does not have telephones or internet so they are still forced to be at the mercy of corporate giants like sony. Besides how many times have music companies and movie producers been sued themselves for copyright infringement for stealing other peoples ideas or art????? Who is calling the kettle black now????

reply

Praetorian

Fuck the MPAA, the RIAA and anyone else that attempts to attack the people.

Between 75% and 85% of all music, cinema and TV is absolute stinking shit. It should be flushed down the toilet of bad history never to rear it's ugly head. The 15% to 25% of good to superb of the above deserves some sort of praise.

Example. I've been a torrent-hound for years. I've downloaded so much shit that my PC fucking died once from torrent-intoxication. The fucking thing was drunk on torrents. I killed my PC. However, I'm one that can say that when I download something that is, in my opinion, true art, like say The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I will actually go out and buy the extended box set, which yes, is sitting proudly in my loungeroom. It cost a fucking fortune but you know what, fuck it! That's my way of saying thanks to Peter Jackson and all the actors and contributors to that Trilogy for giving me hours and entertainment and food for my imagination.

When people start getting serious about making good music, cinema and TV, then I'll "consider" uninstalling Bit Torrent and Bit Comet.

Until then, get fucked!

Long Live ISOHUNT.com, Long Live the Information Revolution

:)

reply

Praetorian

Oh ... and be good to ya mother ... :)

reply

Just passing

Update, Jan. 16, 2007
Lawyers from our primary ISP decided to pull our plug without any advance notice, as of 14:45 PST. No doubt related to our lawsuit brought by the MPAA, but we don't have more information at this time until people responsible comes to work tomorrow. We will be back in operation once we sort out this mess with our current ISP, or we get new hardware ready at our new ISP.

Sit back and enjoy the rest of the internet in the mean time, while it last. For your torrent searching needs, try Google for now by searching for "SEARCH TERMS ext:torrent".

You can also come hang around our IRC channel (SSL on port +7000). We'll update on this page and on IRC when we have more information.

If you wish to help us out financially, you can donate via Paypal from the button below. Due to prior dis-taste from certain individuals misusing legal funds for their own purposes however, this is not a legal defense fund. Your donations will be used for the operational costs of our servers and development of our websites. You have our sincere thanks.

reply

digitalbowser