Wow..

Wow...

I didn't know it was illegal to download movies either...
Of course saying "I didn't know it was illegal to kill someone" doesn't exactly mean they are going to say "oh well ok then, since ya didn't know it was illegal and all.. just don't do it again"

What's the difference between downloading a movie and recording a movie on TIVO?

honestly I'm not sure what the difference is... I think with the "offering it to thousands of people" part they are trying use to add legitimacy to their claim.. but I think its completely dumb... As far as "I didn't know it was illegal..." this excuse stands because the person in question is a minor. and unless I'm mistaken, its not the grandfather that would be held accountable, unless he is the child's legal guardian.

All in all, the reason I think this is so stupid.. there are thousands of movies out their.. and many of them are decent enough.. but a lot of people aren't going to bother buying them. you can't say definitively how much money you lost due to piracy because their is no way to tell who would have bought the movie if it had not been readily available via the Internet. I for one don't buy many movies... I rent them.. if I decided to download one (which I don't) it would be because of convince and ease.. I wouldn't pay money for the movie.. so my downloading it isn't costing them anything....
and honestly, I think any and every downloader could use this excuse...

just my thoughts tho..

They will never be able to say if they lost money or not.

I used to download a little music. I haven't downloaded any in over 4 years. In the last 4 years I've probably bought 4 CD's. While downloading music I would buy at least 3 or 4 a month. So honestly they made money by me downloading. Any of the music I downloaded was either something I already had on vinyl, or wouldn't have bought anyway.

I may the exception to the rule but I doubt. (I'm not very exceptioanl...)

I never messed with DVD's because it would take too long to download and I just buy them. I only have about 250 DVD's so far.

First off, this is just like the Napster suits that went out. Simply a statement of "We're not going to tolerate it now because we'll lose more money later if we do."

I can understand it to a degree, but suing granpa for what grandson did just looks bad....from a PR perspective if nothing else.

As far as TiVo, I understand that you have a fairly limited amount of space to store the recorded programs and there is a copy-protect from burning them to DVD direct from it.

Lets all agree that most productions take a great deal of money to make, and no one is spending the money to never be reimbursed. Indeed, they are looking to profit off this venture like any good buisness-person...

OK.. for TiVo that might be true.. but what about good old VCR's.. I've known a lot of people that used to "tape" movies off TV.. there were no lawsuits then? how come the video people didn't bring lawsuits against the VCR makers.. after all thousands of people had them.. and thousands of people had HBO and other movie channels....

the thing is, they are just being money hungry. Back when music tapes came out the music industry cried that they there going to destroy sales because everyone could record the music off the radio... guess what, never happened... same thing with Video.. the movie makers cried that no one would go to the theater or rather drive in at the time.. but there was no replacing the experience.. and that's why millions of people are still willing to pay $10 to see some stupid flick on the big screen.

IMHO this is no different. the industry needs to overcome and adapt instead of trying to sue elderly people that have no idea what's going on. Its just a pathetic attempt at getting some quick cash.. And saddly, that is what a lot of business people are like, too little care for the people and too much concern for the almighty buck.

Oh, and I forgot about something. "She said the problem is the movies that were downloaded were then available to thousands of other users on the iMesh network." this statement is provided to try to blame this one individual with feeding thousands of people the movies in question.. BUT, that isn't how P2P networks work. basically the thousands of people he was making it available too where already making it available to each other. essentially, he is only a percent of whatever number they claim he maid it available too.

For example, if they say he made it available to 100 people.. then he is really only 1% at fault, because the rest of the 100 people were making it available to each other as well... I don't see how they can claim that he is completely responsible for the illegal distribution to thousands of people when he was just a small percentage of the number in question. and if literally thousands of people where downloading it, he is responsible for less than 1%. which seems to make this lawsuit even more frivolous.

Wow... excellent points Ki. Well stated arguemnts.

I agree with you. Why not file suit against VCR makers? Why not file suit against DVD or CD burner manufacturers? Are they the "enabler" for this "criminal" activity?

I mean.. come on. Its just sad.

Could the people that watch a regular TV show and have taped every episode be sued for owning an "illegal" copy of the season?

OK I talked to some folks at work (I work for the *cough* TV industry *cough*) and apparently enterpises like TiVo (and online download places) pay the copywright fees.
As far as VCR stuff goes I have no clue.