"The Avengers," "Dark Knight Rises," "The Walking Dead" Among 2012's Most-Pirated

[Vibranium]

the reality of the situation is they aren't going to imprison 8,720,000 people for downloading movies. the prison system in America alone is overcrowded and underfunded. fines is a much better use of time, and resources.

they will go after the uploaders, not the downloaders.

I agree...but the fines are going to be pretty stiff, and it seems they are going after the mass uploaders first

[the goddamn batman]

of course they are, penalizing 8,720,000 people across the world is ridiculous. what about roommates? Dave did the downloading, but it's my computer, or internet account. or on a neighbors wifi, or hotspot? and what about all the people who hide their torrenting?

[Arthur72]

Is Torrenting still popular? I thought with the free alternatives out there for movies and tv it slowed down a lot. Mind you I haven't been in school in ages so I don't know if it's rampant among teens and college students.

[Shikidum]

Burning Sun

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2166144/

[Mat001]

That money you've saved for yourself at the library is no different than downloading movies. I agree - saving money is awesome - but that doesn't make it any more legal or right.

Actually, the libraries allow that, even inside their facilities. They only charge for blank CD's, but they have hard drives with burners. What they cannot do is charge you for each download of their stock, because that goes against the copyright law which forbids that. What's more, libraries are now creating digital downloading for their online services, where you can download a select number of songs if you are a registered member with an active card. No charges required. What we the patrons do with their copies of music all falls under the legal parameters. You can argue if it's morally right or wrong, but let's face it, we've all done it.

Bottom line is that the music is already bought and paid for. So long as there is no actual illegal shenanigans, libraries are free to do with the content that they own as they please. If the law were to change in that regard, it would be a whole different matter.

You're right, those things are no different. And they're no more legal, either.

The difference, however, between those things and internet piracy are the size and immediacy of the issue. Used to, you had to borrow a friend's tape to record it to yours, and that took time and effort, and it was limited to whether or not you had a friend with that tape that would let you borrow it. Now, one person could by a CD and upload it, and it's suddenly available to EVERYONE at the click of a button.

The price we pay for technology. Forty years ago, cassette tapes were used to get songs off the radio and you could dub them to distribute to your friends. Now, the internet allows it for the whole world. You cannot expect people to not take advantage of the technology. In my day, my friend and I would make copies of albums if we bought them, so that the other wouldn't have to. We did it with a wide variety of soundtracks and albums. What we did over a seven year period isn't much different from what's done now.

But that is different. You're borrowing your friend's game, not copying it. You can't both play the game at the same time, because there's only one copy.

True, it was different. The similarities are that one of us didn't pay for a new copy, with a portion going to the companies. Back then, we didn't have the means to hack the cartridges and consoles to create emulators. Today, well, we can either use an emulator or go buy used copies which the companies don't see a dime off of.

Is Torrenting still popular? I thought with the free alternatives out there for movies and tv it slowed down a lot. Mind you I haven't been in school in ages so I don't know if it's rampant among teens and college students.

Obviously it is, otherwise there wouldn't be new laws that are being written to deal with them. Sure, there's free and legal alternatives, but it still doesn't change that torrents continue to be used in place of the safer and official means.

[Surtur]

As for the guy who recently got prosecuted, what was it for specifically? Did he download a few movies? Or are we talking one of those people who pirate hundreds of things? Was he uploading or otherwise hosting a website where people could download things?

[Alex]

They rarely, if ever, go after people for downloading, they get people for seeding.
Which is why you should not leave your torrent client up kids. And don't worry about pirate bay, they don't watch your ratio.

[Surtur]

They rarely, if ever, go after people for downloading, they get people for seeding.
Which is why you should not leave your torrent client up kids. And don't worry about pirate bay, they don't watch your ratio.

I'll admit I don't understand the pirate bay comment. All I know is that it is a torrent site.

[Jared]

Project X is really out of place there. Did people mistake it for porn?

I seriously expect that to be the case.

[dupersuper]

Ok, you're right. Maybe "can't get what you want" wasn't the right thing to say. Maybe "shouldn't" or "can't legally" would be more appropriate. The point remains the same. It's this attitude of entitlement that is the problem. "I want to watch it but I don't want to pay for it. It's available for free, so I should be allowed to do that."

It's all a matter of degree. How many people deriding streaming/downloading have jaywalked to save time?

If I'm at work and set my DVR to record a show (skipping the commercials) when I get home, I'm not breaking the law. If my DVR konks out so I watch it on Youtube, I am breaking the law...but as I don't see the difference, I don't care. Laws have to have a purpose or they're just arbitrary rules.

And see... just as I thought (and no, I haven't read the last 4-5 pages of this thread). This has seemingly quickly devolved into a debate about legalities and peoples rights to download. Didn't anyone learn anything from the guy who was prosecuted earlier this year?

Keep it up and you will all eventually get caught and possibly fined or imprisoned

Tens of millions of new prisoners would be a boon to the U.S's burgeoning prison industrial complex...

Is Torrenting still popular? I thought with the free alternatives out there for movies and tv it slowed down a lot. Mind you I haven't been in school in ages so I don't know if it's rampant among teens and college students.

I work in an office full of middle aged ladies/mothers (AKA hardened criminals on this thread): they love torrents.

[Vibranium]

If I'm at work and set my DVR to record a show (skipping the commercials) when I get home, I'm not breaking the law. If my DVR konks out so I watch it on Youtube, I am breaking the law...but as I don't see the difference, I don't care. Laws have to have a purpose or they're just arbitrary rules.

its copyrighted material, thats the reason

and if your DVR conks out, you can watch it On Demand (which is available usually that same week) or on that particular networks website...there are plenty of avenues

[Phil Clark]

Tens of millions of new prisoners would be a boon to the U.S's burgeoning prison industrial complex...

Don't exaggerate to try to prove a point. As I said, "fined OR imprisoned". They will go after uploaders first, agreed. But that doesn't mean that if people become blips on the radar, they cannot be fined for downloading copyrighted material. I don't expect everyone who breaks a copyright law to go to prison. I don't even expect everyone who breaks a copyright law to be fined.

All I have ever said on the matter, and I keep getting misquoted, is that IF you upload or download copyrighted material that you do not own the copyright too, you could be prosecuted and potentially fined or imprisoned, depending on the severity of the offense.

But people would rather make me out to be a hard nosed, break the law and go to jail type. It isn't that black or white. I know and acknowledge that. But the "it isn't going to happen to me" attitude doesn't fly. Because IF you break the law, and if you continue to do so, it could happen to you.

Which is more affordable, buying a movie for $30 or paying a $1,000± fine for having downloaded that movie for free? Is it really worth the risk? In this economy? Really?

[Mat001]

Is it worth the risk? I dunno, is it wroth the risk to go drinking and driving? People still do it. What about illegal drugs? Life is about risks and that's why people will choose the risk over the safe and easy way.

[dupersuper]

Is it worth the risk? I dunno, is it wroth the risk to go drinking and driving? People still do it. What about illegal drugs? Life is about risks and that's why people will choose the risk over the safe and easy way.

The drinking and driving is a bad example as it actually endangers others, but comparing it to sitting at home smoking weed works. Technically illegal, but a vast amount of people don't care.

[Plawsky]

Actually, the libraries allow that, even inside their facilities. They only charge for blank CD's, but they have hard drives with burners. What they cannot do is charge you for each download of their stock, because that goes against the copyright law which forbids that. What's more, libraries are now creating digital downloading for their online services, where you can download a select number of songs if you are a registered member with an active card. No charges required. What we the patrons do with their copies of music all falls under the legal parameters. You can argue if it's morally right or wrong, but let's face it, we've all done it.

Bottom line is that the music is already bought and paid for. So long as there is no actual illegal shenanigans, libraries are free to do with the content that they own as they please. If the law were to change in that regard, it would be a whole different matter.

I might need to look more into it, but I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, even if the libraries allow it. The fact that you own a CD does not give you the right to make copies of it. You can give your copy away if you want, but that is vastly different than making a copy of it.

As for the "bought and paid for" comment, that only applies to one copy of the CD. The burned copy is not bought and paid for.

The price we pay for technology. Forty years ago, cassette tapes were used to get songs off the radio and you could dub them to distribute to your friends. Now, the internet allows it for the whole world. You cannot expect people to not take advantage of the technology. In my day, my friend and I would make copies of albums if we bought them, so that the other wouldn't have to. We did it with a wide variety of soundtracks and albums. What we did over a seven year period isn't much different from what's done now.

You're right, it's not different, aside from the scale. As I mentioned before, the access is thousands of times greater now than it was in the day of tapes.

Now, some things - like making mix tapes/CDs or recording tapes from the radio - could fall under fair use depending on circumstance. But downloading a movie or TV show certainly doesn't.

True, it was different. The similarities are that one of us didn't pay for a new copy, with a portion going to the companies. Back then, we didn't have the means to hack the cartridges and consoles to create emulators. Today, well, we can either use an emulator or go buy used copies which the companies don't see a dime off of.

Those two things aren't the same, though. Using an emulator is exactly like pirating music or a movie. Buying a used copy is purchasing a legal copy of the game. True, the gaming companies don't see money from the second hand sale, but someone does. While it might not be your right as the owner of the game to make a copy, it's absolutely your right to sell it to someone else. Now, you might see that as an arbitrary difference, but it's really not one.

It's also while next-gen consoles might switch to download only or license required gaming. This would effectively kill the secondary market. Now, I'm not for that move at all, mind you, but I get why they're doing it.

It's all a matter of degree. How many people deriding streaming/downloading have jaywalked to save time?

I really don't get why people always compare piracy to jaywalking. I guess it's because many think they are both victimless, but it still seems like an odd comparison to me. For what it's worth, I have no problem with a cop handing out jaywalking tickets; I'd be annoyed as hell, but I'm pretty annoyed when I get a speeding ticket too.

If I'm at work and set my DVR to record a show (skipping the commercials) when I get home, I'm not breaking the law. If my DVR konks out so I watch it on Youtube, I am breaking the law...but as I don't see the difference, I don't care. Laws have to have a purpose or they're just arbitrary rules.

Ad revenue, that's the difference. Even if you're not watching the ads, the channel is still getting the ratings from you recording the show, and getting paid for it. When you watch it on youtube, the company gets no ad revenue (unless it's put up by the company, in which case it's perfectly legal to watch it on youtube).