Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

[BellaBellucci]

I don't really believe in copyright in it's existing form, sorry. I think it has no basis in reason except to secure finances at the expense of guaranteed popular rights.

Wow, that statement is about as harsh as Danielle's expectations that Verizon and Comcast play Copyright Batman. If you create something, you have the explicit right to own it and profit from it, whether it's physical or intellectual property. My problem isn't with copyrighting. It's with our current methods of (attempted) enforcement.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

I have some issues with current copyright law also, namely the fact that it continues on after the author's death (can thank Europe for that lol). However, I am very much in favor of protecting someone's rights to their creation. How would you feel if you spent 5 years of your life writing a book and then I come along and seed an e-version of it on the internet for free? I'm willing to bet that you'd feel robbed.

Nobody believes that they should never use other people's ideas without paying them money. If you believed that then you wouldn't even be able to talk because you didn't invent the words you are using.

[Niccolo]

But prosecuting someone for reading it? Surely the way to go would be to find out who had actually taken the book from you and made it available to the general public?

Put it another way: if one wanted to stop the activities on this site, would banning a user work? Two? Three?

Wouldn't the most effective way to go be to actually stop the site? Then the actitivies that take place here would cease.

If legal action was required then it'd be a much cheaper option too. You'd only be paying a solicitor to go after one other party, instead of several. Keeping any legal bills to a minimum is a very, very good thing indeed.

[BellaBellucci]

But prosecuting someone for reading it? Surely the way to go would be to find out who had actually taken the book from you and made it available to the general public?

Put it another way: if one wanted to stop the activities on this site, would banning a user work? Two? Three?

Wouldn't the most effective way to go be to actually stop the site? Then the actitivies that take place here would cease.

If legal action was required then it'd be a much cheaper option too. You'd only be paying a solicitor to go after one other party, instead of several. Keeping any legal bills to a minimum is a very, very good thing indeed.

I love how the argument from the more litigious parties is that they can't sue all of those companies because there are too many of them. I laugh every time I hear it. Millions of people download illegally, some of them are even here on this thread complaining about lost revenues. They're going to sue them all instead?

The real reason they don't sue the actual pirates is because:

a) most of them are out of the country
b) they nearly all have lawyers and litigation is expensive

It's just much easier and makes a more frightening point for the plaintiffs to sue individuals and make examples out of them, regardless of their ability to make restitution because they really have little or no defense.

But preying on the vulnerable has always been Seanchai's strong suit.

~BB~

[NYBURBS]

Nobody believes that they should never use other people's ideas without paying them money. If you believed that then you wouldn't even be able to talk because you didn't invent the words you are using.

You can't copyright an idea nor can you gain rights to simple words. We're talking about an actual creative work (i.e., a novel or film) that most certainly is the product of someone's effort.

[sunairco]

There's no conflict in what Steven says. There's a big difference between Fair Use of content that you paid for and using content that's outright stolen. The old record and magazine example is just as valid with digital content today. Legally pursuing those that maliciously gain entry to a website without paying or reselling intellectual property is by all means justified. It's the legal pursuit that I take issue with. Identifying a culprit and pursuing to the fullest extent of the law both civilly and criminally is a reasonable and honorable action. However Steven mentions retaining a copyright group to monetize infringement. I do hope that his legal team has advised
him of the potential reprecussions of using of spamigation specialists.

[BellaBellucci]

There's no conflict in what Steven says. There's a big difference between Fair Use of content that you paid for and using content that's outright stolen. The old record and magazine example is just as valid with digital content today. Legally pursuing those that maliciously gain entry to a website without paying or reselling intellectual property is by all means justified. It's the legal pursuit that I take issue with. Identifying a culprit and pursuing to the fullest extent of the law both civilly and criminally is a reasonable and honorable action. However Steven mentions retaining a copyright group to monetize infringement. I do hope that his legal team has advised
him of the potential reprecussions of using of spamigation specialists.

Sure, OK. It's reasonable, although I don't know about honorable since it's expected that a person would want to protect their own intellectual property. And it's certainly impractical:

http://www.techspot.com/news/35389-h...-in-total.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...00810200.shtml

... shall I continue?

And there is most certainly a conflict when Steven talks about the small-time home downloader and Eastern European porn theft rings making a profit on their activities in the same breath. They are most certainly not the same, and while Steven says on one hand that he's not worried about the little guys, they're exactly what this whole thing is about.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

You can't copyright an idea nor can you gain rights to simple words. We're talking about an actual creative work (i.e., a novel or film) that most certainly is the product of someone's effort.

I know you can't copyright ideas and words but they are the product of someone's effort and you don't believe that you owe money simply for that fact.

[dc_guy_75]

It should be easy to make men (who have downloaded tranny porn) pay, especially if they're married. Haha.

Read the last line of this article:
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/...one-viral.html

[NYBURBS]

I know you can't copyright ideas and words but they are the product of someone's effort and you don't believe that you owe money simply for that fact.

I think any reasonable person can see the difference between using a language to converse in a generic sense and copying a work that someone else has produced without paying for it or receiving their permission. We're talking apples and oranges here.

Answer my question. How would you feel if you worked hard to create something, even based your livelihood on it, and then someone else came along and made use of it without paying?