NinjaVideo Co-Founder Pleads Guilty

[BlackLantern]

the very bottom of my first post answers the question....Smith and four other co-conspirators are headed for a jury trial

granted it's an assumption, but I'd say it's a safe bet that in this sort of case, the prosecution wants as much information as they can to figure out if one of them was the "head" or which one has more information than the other.....so if not Smith, id say at least one of them will be testifying against the others

 

[chaseter]

Actually I wouldn't mind that at all. And most musicians and authors find that that sort of thing doesn't really cut into their profits very much and serves as more or less free advertising.

And the moral problem I have with stealing candy from a store is that it takes money away from the store. If you stole 12 dollars worth of candy from an M&Ms factory I wouldn't care, they probably wouldn't notice.

I find this kind of moral absolutism to be very diturbing, as A) It leaves no room for extenuating circumstances and B) justifies powerful corporations bullying people senselessly.

You wouldn't mind if a million people were torrenting your music instead of paying for it on itunes? Makes sense.

I like how you try to say stealing music online is morally better than stealing candy from a store. You are right, one person stealing $12 worth of candy from the factory probably would go unnoticed. What if 100 people did it? What if 1000 people did it? What if 10000 people did it? What then? Stealing music takes away money from itunes. It takes away money from the people who made the music. It takes away money from stores like Best Buy or Target because more people are stealing music instead of purchasing the cd or itunes gift cards.

The dude made a website for people who steal music to gather. It's the same thing as setting up a secret store for people who steal merchandise to gather and trade. Do I think it's silly for these companies to sue these people millions and millions? Yeah. Do I think it's silly for them to have jail time or pay a fine/community service. No. Stealing is stealing. There is no moral absolutism about it. Just because you are stealing from the rich you think it's fine?

 

[The Question]

the very bottom of my first post answers the question....Smith and four other co-conspirators are headed for a jury trial

granted it's an assumption, but I'd say it's a safe bet that in this sort of case, the prosecution wants as much information as they can to figure out if one of them was the "head" or which one has more information than the other.....so if not Smith, id say at least one of them will be testifying against the others

That is a possibility. But that is it, a possibility.

Also, you didn't answer any of my other questions.

You wouldn't mind if a million people were torrenting your music instead of paying for it on itunes? Makes sense.

Yes, it does make sense. That sort of thing doesn't really cut into a musician's income significantly, especially if they're already at a point in their popularity where they would have that many people wanting to listen to their music. In fact, artists who are signed with record labels make much more money from concert tours than they do from album sales.

I like how you try to say stealing music online is morally better than stealing candy from a store. You are right, one person stealing $12 worth of candy from the factory probably would go unnoticed. What if 100 people did it? What if 1000 people did it? What if 10000 people did it? What then? Stealing music takes away money from itunes. It takes away money from the people who made the music. It takes away money from stores like Best Buy or Target because more people are stealing music instead of purchasing the cd or itunes gift cards.

Except, as I said, it doesn't really take that much money away from the people who make the music, and those big companies still do fine. The fact is people still buy albums and DVDs and books through proper channels, enough to keep those companies afloat, in spite of torrenting being a common occourance.

The dude made a website for people who steal music to gather. It's the same thing as setting up a secret store for people who steal merchandise to gather and trade. Do I think it's silly for these companies to sue these people millions and millions? Yeah. Do I think it's silly for them to have jail time or pay a fine/community service. No. Stealing is stealing. There is no moral absolutism about it.

There is moral absolutism about it. "Stealing is stealing" is an absolutist phrase.

In any event, it really isn't the same thing. Torrenting and illegal downloads isn't the trading of stolen merchandise, it's the free trading of purchased merchandise. It's not like people are breaking into record studeos and stealling all of their recordings, they're buying them and then sharing them on the internet. It's what people did for years before the internet just on a larger scale. And while there might be a slight dip in profits because of it, you will generally find that it actually exposes artists and creators to a larger audience who will then be more inclined to buy their products later on.

In spite of downloads and torrents, these companies still make a significant profit. None of them are at risk of people shut down because of the internet. So, if no one is getting hurt, why should it be something that is seriously persued by the law?

 

[BlackLantern]

Admition of guilt does not mean admition or regret or acceptance of the punishment you're given. That is insane. Under the law, he is guilty, and it is probably easier on him in the long run to plead guilty than to fight in a case he knows he can't win. That doesn't mean the punishment he will recieve is in any way justified.

And really, how would it? How does someone pleading guilty prove that they deserve the severity of the punishment they will get?

That applies to your second statement. How does the fact that he's pleading strategically to make things easier on himself have anything to do with wether or not the law's approach to dealing with people who torrent is justified?

if a person TRULY believes in what they are doing....they will bear any punishment given out to them

but that is not the case...they were out to subvert the system, make a little scratch for themselves, got caught, and will now pay the consequences and are begging at the feet of the very "establishment" they struck out against for leniency

 

[The Question]

if a person TRULY believes in what they are doing....they will bear any punishment given out to them

but that is not the case...they were out to subvert the system, make a little scratch for themselves, got caught, and will now pay the consequences and are begging at the feet of the very "establishment" they struck out against for leniency

That is absurd. You're saying that a person who feels they didn't do anything wrong should fight a losing battle that will only make things worse for them instead of pleading tactically to achieve the best possible outcome, and if they don't do that then that A) Proves that they believe what they did was wrong and B) Proves what they did was objectively wrong.

Do you see how broken that logic is?

 

[BlackLantern]

That is absurd. You're saying that a person who feels they didn't do anything wrong should fight a losing battle that will only make things worse for them instead of pleading tactically to achieve the best possible outcome, and if they don't do that then that A) Proves that they believe what they did was wrong and B) Proves what they did was objectively wrong.

Do you see how broken that logic is?

it's only losing if you don't fight.....granted this isn't a big issue in terms of the world, but plenty of men throughout history fought what many perceived to be a "losing battle" and some lost some won, but the point is they did actually fight

These 5 men didn't fight, they got caught and rolled over like sick dogs

 

[The Question]

it's only losing if you don't fight.....granted this isn't a big issue in terms of the world, but plenty of men throughout history fought what many perceived to be a "losing battle" and some lost some won, but the point is they did actually fight

They had no legal recourse. There was no way they were going to win the case. Fighting it would have accomplished nothing but making their lives worse.

And, regardless, since when does losimng hope in front of impossible odds prove your cause to be unjust? Since when does the lack of strength on the part of one individual prove that what they were trying to do in the first place was wrong?

These 5 men didn't fight, they got caught and rolled over like sick dogs

That does not prove anything. That does not prove that they feel they did something wrong and that does not prove that what they did was objectively wrong. All that proves is that they were not willing to enter into a long drawn out court case where the odds were stacked against them. There could be millions of reasons as to why, the most likely reason being that they simply didn't think they could win. That doesn't mean that they thought they were in the wrong, simply that they thought the system ws against them.

And in any event, wether or not they thought they were in the wrong does not prove that they were objectively in the wrong.

 

[chaseter]

The Question supports stealing music and movie because those big bad corporations deserve it.

 

[The Question]

The Question supports stealing music and movie because those big bad corporations deserve it.

No, I don't. I am against the harsh penalization of it because I believe it to be a victimless crime. I have been very clear about that.

 

[BlackLantern]

Victimless in what sense? whether you want to believe it or not....piracy, both in films and music has affected these studios and companies, and while that not may be important to you....what happens when studios need to cut costs because of that lost profit? people lose jobs

its a bit personal with me because I had a cousin who busted her ass to get an internship...and then job at Sony Music...was an employee for three months before Sony had that HUGE layoff in 2008 mainly because of lost profit

again, you may not care because "hey, a big corporation can afford it" and yes they can because they cut jobs and get rid of the rank and file....the people that work at these studios and companies that aren't millionaires....your production assistants, secretaries, office staff, and the like

 

[The Question]

Victimless in what sense? whether you want to believe it or not....piracy, both in films and music has affected these studios and companies, and while that not may be important to you....what happens when studios need to cut costs because of that lost profit? people lose jobs

its a bit personal with me because I had a cousin who busted her ass to get an internship...and then job at Sony Music...was an employee for three months before Sony had that HUGE layoff in 2008 mainly because of lost profit

again, you may not care because "hey, a big corporation can afford it" and yes they can because they cut jobs and get rid of the rank and file....the people that work at these studios and companies that aren't millionaires....your production assistants, secretaries, office staff, and the like

Everything I've read on the subject says that the profit lost from digitial piracy is too small to effect a company enough to result in things like layoffs. Record companies aren't doing as well financially as they used to, but most studies suggest that the amount digital piracy contributes to that is minimal at best, and it has more to do with how new media has effecyed the world of arts and entertainment in general. Also, statistics are slightly skewed by the fact that the record industry has a huge boom with CD sales in the late 90s, which normalized in the 2000s after the novelty of CDs had worn of. So while there has been a significant decline in the last few years, it was after a period of unusually good business due to the popularity of a product that is now commonplace.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

When you can get something for free with no real repercussions people will do it. Many attempt to throw out every excuse in the sun tinting it with some sort of robin hood mentality. Pc games have suffered dearly because of piracy. It's entire industry is moving towards MMO and free2play because that style of game doesn't get stolen. They never admit they do it because they can, always some piffy self righteousness twaddle in limp attempts for self-justification. I'm sure if beheading was the punishment the little made up robin hood mentality would disappear swiftly.

 

[The Question]

When you can get something for free with no real repercussions people will do it. Many attempt to throw out every excuse in the sun tinting it with some sort of robin hood mentality. Pc games have suffered dearly because of piracy. It's entire industry is moving towards MMO and free2play because that style of game doesn't get stolen. They never admit you do it because they can, always some piffy self righteousness twaddle in limp attempts for self-justification. I'm sure if beheading was the punishment the little made up robin hood mentality would disappear swiftly.

Could you use actual evidence to back up your point instead of impassioned buzzwords?

 

[BlackLantern]

the first sentence is the point...and it's true....people are selfish and if they can get something for nothing, they will

my point is this whole railing against "the man" mentality when someone is caught for breaking the law and is being made to answer for it

 

[The Question]

the first sentence is the point...and it's true....people are selfish and if they can get something for nothing, they will

my point is this whole railing against "the man" mentality when someone is caught for breaking the law and is being made to answer for it

The thing is, most people don't have a problem with it for the sake of railing agaisnt the man, most people legitimately think that the law's approach to digital piracy is unreasonable.

 

[BlackLantern]

so they take it upon themselves to break it? doesn't make it ok

and as hyperbolic as it may sound, I half agree with Spock....send these guys to jail, let them get cornholed for a couple years, then come out of jail and tell people "this is what happens when you break the law"

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

most people legitimately think that the law's approach to digital piracy is unreasonable.

If anything it's not enough. And the reason people are doing it (like I mentioned above) is that they don't see any real chance of punishment for doing it, so it has become socially acceptable. People run out and buy a pc with piracy being a main motive. They are far too lenient and not being allowed to do enough to tackle it.

 

[The Question]

so they take it upon themselves to break it? doesn't make it ok

Most people who torrent things do not do it as an act of defiance, they do it because they honestly don't see the harm in doing so.

With good reason, because the harm in doing so is statistically very unclear.

And if a law is unreasonable, then why isn't it okay to break it?

and as hyperbolic as it may sound, I half agree with Spock....send these guys to jail, let them get cornholed for a couple years, then come out of jail and tell people "this is what happens when you break the law"

So you're saying that allowing someone to be raped in prison is a reasonable punishment for torrenting music.

Say that out loud. Say "prison and rape is a reasonable punishment for torrenting."

Don you not realize how wrong that is?

I question: Is your problem with these people that you honestly thing that torrenting is objectively harmful, or do you have a problem with people who simply break and/or show disprespect for the law?

If anything it's not enough. And the reason people are doing it (like I mentioned above) is that they don't see any real chance of punishment for doing it, so it has become socially acceptable. People run out and buy a pc with piracy being a main motive. They are far too lenient and not being allowed to do enough to tackle it.

The reason people are doing it is because they see it as harmless. Which many studies and statistics suggest it is.

And you honestly think that jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in lawsuits isn't a harsh enough punishment? When most people who torrent are middle class-to-fairly poor? Seriosuly?

 

[BlackLantern]

whether it's harmful or not is not the issue here.....my issue is the disrespect for the law....I hate speed limits, does it mean I do 85 to work? no I obey the speed limit and I deal with it

and all we are talking about here is entertainment.....music, movies...if you can't afford it, learn to do without...plain and simple

and that the copyright law is plastered on everything.....no one can or should claim ignorance of it

 

[The Question]

whether it's harmful or not is not the issue here.....my issue is the disrespect for the law....I hate speed limits, does it mean I do 85 to work? no I obey the speed limit and I deal with it

and all we are talking about here is entertainment.....music, movies...if you can't afford it, learn to do without...plain and simple

and that the copyright law is plastered on everything.....no one can or should claim ignorance of it

Why should people have respect for a law that makes no sense?

The law is not some objectively good thing. It's a set of rules for governing a society. Some of them make sense, others don't. The ones that don't make sense shouldn't exist and people have every right to disrespect them.

There are states where anal sex is still illegal, should people respect that law?

 

[BlackLantern]

it makes no sense TO YOU....makes sense to me because it really doesn't affect me....if I want a movie or music, I go buy it...if I don't have the money, I wait till I can afford it

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Most people who torrent things do not do it as an act of defiance, they do it because they honestly don't see the harm in doing so.

You are saying that probably in the context of "harm to the industry".
It's far more likely that the reality is, harm to them, without giving a single crap about the industry. Of those millions upon millions upon millions people even have a basic comprehension of the industry? I think not. Nor do they care.

The reason people are doing it is because they see it as harmless. Which many studies and statistics suggest it is.?

People say one thing and do another, studies and statistics factually prove this.

And you honestly think that jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in lawsuits isn't a harsh enough punishment? When most people who torrent are middle class-to-fairly poor? Seriosuly?

The likely hood of this actually happening to the average pirate is very low.
Thus, it is socially acceptable. I'm willing to bet most of the people on this forum are pirates without a care in the world.

 

[The Question]

it makes no sense TO YOU....makes sense to me because it really doesn't affect me....if I want a movie or music, I go buy it...if I don't have the money, I wait till I can afford it

Wether or not a law effects a specific individual doesn't determine wether or not it makes sense. What determines that is A) how much of a practical purpose it serves, B) how harmful the thing it is preventing is/how beneficial the thing it is causing is, C) how much it curtails or increases the freedoms of citizens in general and what the cost of that is, D) how effective it is at achieveing it's goals, and E) how much of a burden enforcing it is on society.

You, as an individual, have little to do with that.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

There are states where anal sex is still illegal, should people respect that law?

Yes.

 

[The Question]

You are saying that probably in the context of "harm to the industry".
It's far more likely that the reality is, harm to them, without giving a single crap about the industry. Of those millions upon millions upon millions people even have a basic comprehension of the industry? I think not. Nor do they care.

Why does it matter if they care? What does it matter how much they know about the industry? What matters is how much torrenting actually harms the industry. If it doesn't do a significant amount of harm then the motivations of digital pirates are irrelevent.

People say one thing and do another, studies and statistics factually prove this.

This is true, at least in many cases.

What does it have to do with anything?

Seriously, what does people saying one thing and doing another have anything to do with how harmful torrenting is to media industries?

The likely hood of this actually happening to the average pirate is very low.
Thus, it is socially acceptable. I'm willing to bet most of the people on this forum are pirates without a care in the world.

That's not because the laws are lax, it's because it's practically difficult to enforce them.

In any event, you didn't really answer my question.

Yes.

Why? Why should two people limit their exploration of their own sexuality on their own time in the privacy of their own homes just because some ignorant ******* wrote a bigoted blue law that is of no benefit to society and only inhibits the freedoms of it's citizens needlessly?