"Facebook thugging" and criminal penalties/ iiNet loses against Dallas Buyer Club LLC

Related Stores

Facebook

• 

  [Deactivated] on 07/04/2015 - 20:01

  More reason to use VPN, or simply http based downloading. (Or pay, depending on what you like… I guess)

• 

  Davo1111 on 07/04/2015 - 20:48

  Police have been doing that sort of stuff for a while, using social media to catch people. Nothing new.

  There was a dude who "planked" on a police car during the "planking" phase. He got busted because of the photo.

  There are people who do burnouts on public roads and upload it to facebook - the police catch the rego and fine them.

• 

  t_c on 08/04/2015 - 06:56

  +1

  If you're not sharing just dloading, how can they justify charging ppl more than the price of a $12 movie ticket?

  • 

    Evil-Elmo on 08/04/2015 - 09:48

    I don't really get this logic - if I go to your house and steal your TV and then get caught, how can you justify any penalty more than me paying you the value of the TV? :)

    I know that's a bit out there and copyright infringement isn't the same as actual theft, but the principle about the penalty is similar…

    • 

      t_c on 08/04/2015 - 14:48

      Exactly, If I stole your $750 TV, do you feel you should be reimbursed with a $10,000 Home Cinema package?

      Try pulling that one on your insurance company.

      • 

        Evil-Elmo on 08/04/2015 - 15:58

        Aren't we talking about the penalty for breaking the law here? Nothing to do with reimbursement.

        Otherwise, why do you pay for anything up front? Why not see if you can get it for free first and then, only if caught, pay for it?

      • 

        t_c on 10/04/2015 - 08:42

        I was talking about the dallas buyers club llc sending letters of demand to people for $1000's of dollars.

        Downloading movies in Australia is not illegal, so it can only be about reimbursement.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 08/04/2015 - 16:30

      If I take your TV, you don't have it anymore.
      Let's say you own a movie that I just illegally downloaded, you still have the movie.

      So like you said, "copyright infringement isn't the same as actual theft", then I don't get why the principle of the penalty should be similar.

      • 

        Evil-Elmo on 08/04/2015 - 17:14

        I agree it's not a great analogy.

        What do you think is a fair penalty? Do you agree with t_c it should just be the price the media could have been bought for in the first place? In which case, why pay for any media (software, movies, music, etc.) which is subject to copyright and only pay for it if caught?

        I personally think such a policy would discourage content creation and is unsustainable. The penalty needs to be greater to discourage people from copyright infringement and to encourage people to do the right thing and pay for the media.

        To try to improve upon my analogy (which may be a lost cause!) the damage in respect of a TV theft is the value of the TV. The damage in respect of copyright infringement is the value the media (e.g. what it could have been purchased for). So why should the penalty be so much less for copyright infringement?

        I don't know the answers and am genuinely interested in discussion around these issues. I personally don't understand why there is such a strong disregard for copyright other than it's just so easy, convenient, and rewarding to do so everyone turns a blind eye to it.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 09/04/2015 - 08:31

      If you steal his T.V. then he has no T.V. left. He is missing the goods. This is not the same as copying and watching a movie.

      • 

        Evil-Elmo on 09/04/2015 - 09:10

        I agree, and I get this… it's why I said copyright isn't the same as actual theft and that it's not a good analogy above.

        However, the movie rights holder is missing their sale from the unauthorised copying and watching of their movie. There is still damage occurring as a result of the copyright infringement.

• 

  RocketSwitch on 08/04/2015 - 11:28

  I would love for all the 5,000 to get a letter and all 5,000 create a class action suit and win.

  This is a sad day. It's not even criminal, it's a civil matter and to allow them to fine common folk unrealistic amounts is unbelievable. Isn't it a crime how they monitored our information? Bullying people to pay would be the crime here with no realistic evidence. They can't prove how much was downloaded to who it was downloaded to. It's assumed, what if people downloaded a few MB and deleted it?

  I'm not talking about content creators BTW (I don't advocate stealing or any of that), they deserve all the recognition and payment. But I can't believe the judge has allowed this.