Max Power ,
It is not a question of whether it is right or wrong to take content via torrents or in any other fashion. The question is about the right and legality of the method being employed to counteract the problem. No one should ever be dealt with in the fashion that this is about, unless there is solid evidence against them, and action is taken against them in court, where they have the ability to defend themselves.
For you, perhaps. But lots of people have other reasons for wanting high bandwidthOne of very few reasons to even have the more expensive, larger bandwidth internet connections is BECAUSE OF Torrents!
People often see themselves as typical. "Most everyone is just like me."
Not so.
I have used a 50/10 connection from Comcast because the higher upload speed made working on a home computer remotely a lot faster than before. I couldnt imagine using a 2mb upstream connection for that anymore.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the usage on a network of a couple family members streaming HD video while someone else is downloading podcasts on iTunes and simultaneously backing up with carbonite. I could see that saturating a connection fairly quickly, if they even have a router capable of handing that diverse traffic and data types.
I Agree with that.
Why is it, they they are offering you this "courtesy" of settling out of court, which basically is saying "We feel you committed a crime, but we're feeling generous today, so we'll give you the opportunity to pay us a settlement instead of going to court." Nice of them, isn't it?
Factor in how much most attorneys charge per hour for their services, court costs, etc., it's no wonder that most people will pay, even if they never did such a thing or had no control over it, because by the time all was said & done, they would be facing a bigger bill then had they just settled.
Borg 386,
It is for this very reason that I believe that the tables need to be turned against both the ISPs and RIAA or anyone involved in provoking such an action. Unless the "settlement" requires the user to sign a document that includes a provision that they must release the ISPs, etc. from the possibility of prosecution, perhaps they should pay the "fee", then take them to court, but not just for recovery of the fee, but for a much greater sum including the fee, court costs, legal fees and a significant penalty for wrongful treatment and illegal business practices. Even if such a document is involved, I doubt that it would hold up in court.Factor in how much most attorneys charge per hour for their services, court costs, etc., it's no wonder that most people will pay, even if they never did such a thing or had no control over it, because by the time all was said & done, they would be facing a bigger bill then had they just settled.
Obviously, it is not just the user who they expect will take the "easy" way out, they are doing the same, otherwise they would never resort to such a dispicable method of doing business. While I can understand why RIAA would want to do something like this, I totally fail to understand why any ISP would. The penalty mentioned is not worth abusing their customers over, nor exposing themselves to litigation. Something more than meets the eye must be involved.
The RIAA has been sitting on their ass instead of finding new innovative ways to protect and profit from rich digital content. Had they simply adopted a cloud distribution model and new sales tactics, they could be selling more music and pushing positive messages into the public before people thought about alternative methods to acquire the same content. Instead they sit back and expect royalties to flow in year after year. Note to RIAA - "This market is always changing and if you fail to recognize the market demand and counter it with the appropriate supply, you will sink faster than a rock. Surprised?"
So what's wrong with this scenario? "I won't lock my front door because 20 years ago there wasn't any crime". Obviously theft is wrong - But negligence creates negligence...and it doesn't help when the source of all this content is demonstrating negligence themselves. You can't throw a dollar bill in the public domain and expect it to be sitting there tomorrow do you? And then proceed to track down who took that dollar and threaten them? You put food in a fish tank and sure enough fish will eat it whether you like it or not. Similarly you can't expect a terms of use on paper to work flawlessly in the real world without considering what is out there. That's negligence! Take negligence a step further by abusing legal loopholes and you have extortion.
All for supporting artists. Not greed buckets. Long live consumer awareness.
Amazing how we have to explain right vs wrong behavior and then give the punishment portion a politically correct slant like this six strikes. If we were the ones creating this content and being denied the royalties of all our hard work, a whole other tune you'd be humming. All I know is I'm not expecting a knock on the door for my vast music collection and yes it's cost me one pretty sum but at least I have the full resolution if it's various mediums and for me the labor and routine of my grooves still rule all other mediums sans master tapes running 15 ips. Though I do love the idea of blu-ray audio but I'm not sure if this generation is interested in that level of quality as they seem so happy with mp3's and $1.50 ear buds............omg!
Stepped up from $1 ear buds to Sennheisers and never looked back...
But on another note I continue to mock the sad state of the industry. Once upon a time, I bought a disc set in WalMart only to find there were no discs in the sealed package when I got home. That's right...an empty box!WalMart's store manager completely denied a refund on the same day despite having the receipt and everything above, without even the slightest sympathy. Regional manager played the dodge ball game for 2 weeks straight. Why are these people even allowed to be in a management position? It seems we have gotten to the point where expectations are so low that being a Manager in Walmart does not require more than the ability to read and write English. (Remember that word above? Negligence) Unfortunately their actions are a mere reflection of corporate greed - paying their employees to rip consumers off and forget ethics.
I guess that everybody's experience varies, because I had a similar experience at Walmart once, where a movie that I bought had no disc inside. Fortunately in my case, I was able to exchange it for another of the same title. Therefore, I suspect it has less to do with corporate policy, than it does with the particular people you are dealing with.But on another note I continue to mock the sad state of the industry. Once upon a time, I bought a disc set in WalMart only to find there were no discs in the sealed package when I got home. That's right...an empty box!
I sincerely hope that time is not wasted for the laws to catchup with technologies marvels. I also sincerly hope that somewhere in all these marvels there is something to remind us of long ago taught table manners that some apparently seem to disregard for the fever of technology.
It's not whether your guilty or innocent - it's what can be proven in court.
Quote