dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2007-12-04 10:07:57: Back in October, the MPAA sent a letter to the presidents of 25 universities informing them they'd been targeted as top p2p hubs and copyright violation hotspots. ..


Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA

Dumb...

So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great .
--
»www.fairtax.org

exocet_cm
Free at last, free at last
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Dumb...

said by Lumberjack:

So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great .
Good that it got pulled. Funny an agency promoting non-copyright infringement resorts to copyright infringement
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
Check Out the Tech Bench »www.johndball.com/index.php/tech-bench/
Ma blog: »www.johndball.com

snipper_cr
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL

Re: Dumb...

I laughed when i heard that Mr Garrett contact the MPAA's ISP to have infringing software removed
mlundin

join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS

Re: Dumb...

One day you'll find this in Webster's dictionary... it'll be listed under "Irony".

I'm LMAO too.
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
said by Lumberjack:

So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great .
What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing?

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Re: Dumb...

said by B:

said by Lumberjack:

So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great .
What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing?

-- B
The GPL as a business license is a crock. While in theory, it's nice to think the GPL should be applied to all free software, you would be surprised how many businesses won't use GPL'd software due to the grey areas and license loopholes it leaves wide open. We just had to make such a comparison and decided we can't use MySQL, so we went with PostgreSQL.

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28

Re: Dumb...

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...
--
In a realm outside causality and function

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Re: Dumb...

said by B:

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...
The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL?

We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28

Re: Dumb...

Okay. Being neither a lawyer nor a hard core developer I can't really argue with your conclusions, though from my limited understanding there are ways to honor the GPL while keeping the sources of your "value added" parts closed. (Diffs and hashes and 3rd party audits, etc. After all, if you can prove that the GPL sources you DO provide recompile back to the corresponding pieces of GPL binary you ship, that should be enough.)

I mean, lots of companies do it! I come across them all the time, and some of them even appear to make money. Fonality / Trixbox is one that I was just looking at a few days ago. They have a "Free" version and several paid premium versions, but ALL of them see to be GPL licensed.

»www.trixbox.com/about-us/terms-a···nditions

They do have a more closed, hosted companion service.

No, I don't have any idea how they keep from getting ripped off when their paid customers decide to redistribute. Frankly, if it takes going to the evil lengths that Sveasoft has gone to (essentially waging a war against its own customers) then I'd rather people just take your approach and stay closed.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function

steelingbox

join:2005-07-09
Deltona, FL
said by Matt3:

said by B:

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...
The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL?

We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us.

steelingbox

join:2005-07-09
Deltona, FL
Dont you know that PostgreSQL is released with the same license that mysql is using? So you better pull the plug on that move quickly.

steelingbox

join:2005-07-09
Deltona, FL
I will stand corrected, the PostgreSQL server is released under the BSD license.

Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA

1 recommendation

said by B:

I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.

Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?

I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".

That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice.

-- B

P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...
I don't know where you came up with anybody being "mad" at authors of GPL applications. I don't hate the people, I dislike the license. I'm sure I may offend a lot of people but I see the GPL as a "hippie" license with the bravado of "hey may, everything should be free man".

It hinders commercial software development on two fronts, one, a commercial software company that doesn't release source code for trade-secret reasons can't use it and two, even if a company agreed to release the source, they can't charge for their own improvements.

If you look at the BSD community you will find a different story. Software is truly free and open-source. Companies can improve it, resell it for profit whether the source is re-released or not. The BEST example ever of this is Apple and OS X. Apple was able to take the BSD operating system and use it under the hood and not be worried by GPL clauses. They also in turn were able to recontribute back to the base BSD operating system teams without fear of GPL licensing war-mongers.

The bottom line is this, if you want to give it away, give it away and let it be free. Don't be anti-greedy with the "I don't want to sell so dammit, nobody else can make any money either, even if they improve it." In general I'm sure most GPL authors don't really care, they just end up with that license because it's trendy and more than likely they have something in there code that is GPL licensed.

Honestly, as my argument is what it is I am thankful for tools like GNU's compiler and the various Linux flavors. And if the authors only thought they would be successful under the GPL, so be it. On that note I should say that I'm a NetBSD user/supporter and eventual developer if ever have the time. That said, any code I work on will either be BSD or commercially licensed. If it's going to be free, it's going to be free.
--
»www.fairtax.org

steelingbox

join:2005-07-09
Deltona, FL
said by Matt3:

said by B:

said by Lumberjack:

So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great .
What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing?

-- B
The GPL as a business license is a crock. While in theory, it's nice to think the GPL should be applied to all free software, you would be surprised how many businesses won't use GPL'd software due to the grey areas and license loopholes it leaves wide open. We just had to make such a comparison and decided we can't use MySQL, so we went with PostgreSQL.

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
wtansill
Ncc1701

join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
said by Matt3:

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.

Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA

Re: Dumb...

said by wtansill:

said by Matt3:

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.
You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves.
--
»www.fairtax.org
wtansill
Ncc1701

join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA

Re: Dumb...

said by Lumberjack:

said by wtansill:

said by Matt3:

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.
You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves.
My point was exactly that -- find code that uses another license, but it was late, and I did not make my point clearly. D'oh!
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster

joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:6
said by Lumberjack:

said by wtansill:

said by Matt3:

We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.
You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves.
Not exactly. I can write an application that uses MySQL for database storage but that doesnt mean I need to make my code GPL. Of course if I include MySQL binaries to make install easier I need to distribute the source for MySQL and MySQL will always be licensed under GPL.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir

Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA

1 recommendation

Re: Dumb...

Correct joako.

But if I used a GPL based library that's not GPL-lite to interact with MySql, then I'd have to release my code as well. So instead I'd have to write that shared library all over again (from my own invention, even though it's going to be the same functionality) to prevent having to release under GPL terms.

A lot of companies avoid GPL just because of what you said... they don't want to be hammered by having to re-release source because they use a binary even though they don't have their own product in GPL domain. They also then are concerned by customers not wanting to buy it because GPL authors can wash their hands of any liability where people that reuse it (as in your MySql) example can not.

Forum: Sorry for my GPL comments taking the news thread way off topic .
--
»www.fairtax.org

evilghost
Premium
join:2003-11-22
Springville, AL

Excellent.

Excellent. The GNU GPL is there for a reason; modify the works of someone else freely but you must provide the source code to those modifications upon request.

I don't have much issue with the MPAA but I do have issue with GPL infringement.

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 recommendation

Re: Excellent.

The GPL is commonly thought of as a "copyleft" or some sort of anti-copyright. In reality, however, it relies on copyright law just as much as any conventional licence or infringement action does.

So what has been exposed here is pure hypocrisy. The Hollywood cartel talks about respect for copyright when it makes them money, but just like the pirates they crusade against, they don't want it applied to limit their own behavior.

Remember folks, whenever anyone spouts some rubbish about copyright enforcers being the good guys: corporations are sociopaths, and a cartel of corporations is even worse. They have no principles, only greed.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

Re: Excellent.

said by swhx7:

The GPL is commonly thought of as a "copyleft" or some sort of anti-copyright. In reality, however, it relies on copyright law just as much as any conventional licence or infringement action does.

So what has been exposed here is pure hypocrisy. The Hollywood cartel talks about respect for copyright when it makes them money, but just like the pirates they crusade against, they don't want it applied to limit their own behavior.

Remember folks, whenever anyone spouts some rubbish about copyright enforcers being the good guys: corporations are sociopaths, and a cartel of corporations is even worse. They have no principles, only greed.
Yeah, well... It's not like this is the first time code has been stolen by an *AA or an *AA member in their bids against piracy. One of Sony's anti-piracy self-installing malware a year or so back consisted, in part, of stolen code. The *AA's also love to plagiarize the various anti-IP websites for their own campaigns. The list goes on and on. But, since the *AA's have an army of lawyers and the ones they rape, pillage and burn don't, they run roughshod over everyone.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
i just find humor in the trade group that is all over pirates like flies on shit, goes and violates GPL without second thought. too bad this was software and not some kinda media, he could take the MPAA to the tune of 150k per violation then.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
bored_in_nh

join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY

1 recommendation

something I never understood

So the record and movie companies say they are losing money from pirated material. How? If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it? So if they can't afford it, they won't buy it. Does that count as losing money too? What's the difference between losing money because someone couldn't afford it and downloaded it, and someone who didn't download it or buy it either? OMG I don't listen to hip hop. Those record producers are losing money on me!

What if a friend of one of these pirates listens to the music or sees the movie the pirate has downloaded, and then decides they want to buy it? Hasn't this turned into a profit for the record company or movie prodcer?
--
In 2000, CEO pay was statistically 300:1 to minimum wage. In 2005, it's 431:1. If minimum wage matched growth rate with CEO pay from 1990 to 2005, it would now be $19.00/hr.

Is Ann Coulter a transexual? What's with that adams apple?

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 recommendation

Re: something I never understood

Your reasoning is right on target. They talk about billions in "losses" to piracy, but if they listed amounts on their balance sheets as debits incurred because of non-purchase of their products when potential customers decided against buying, the SEC would put them in jail. Such hypotheticals do not comport with "generally accepted accounting principles".

hehe

@ssa.gov

1 recommendation

said by bored_in_nh:

So the record and movie companies say they are losing money from pirated material. How? If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it? So if they can't afford it, they won't buy it. Does that count as losing money too? What's the difference between losing money because someone couldn't afford it and downloaded it, and someone who didn't download it or buy it either? OMG I don't listen to hip hop. Those record producers are losing money on me!

What if a friend of one of these pirates listens to the music or sees the movie the pirate has downloaded, and then decides they want to buy it? Hasn't this turned into a profit for the record company or movie prodcer?
I agree with you. So if i decide to not pirate something this must somehow make them some money (or not lose money). I want my fair share of that money for everything I choose to not pirate.
bored_in_nh

join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY

Re: something I never understood

said by hehe :

I agree with you. So if i decide to not pirate something this must somehow make them some money (or not lose money). I want my fair share of that money for everything I choose to not pirate.
Me too! I haven't downloaded anything since the L0pht ran on an old SEII with a 2GB SCSI drive. I want some reward for my good behaviour!
--
In 2000, CEO pay was statistically 300:1 to minimum wage. In 2005, it's 431:1. If minimum wage matched growth rate with CEO pay from 1990 to 2005, it would now be $19.00/hr.

Is Ann Coulter a transexual? What's with that adams apple?
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
said by bored_in_nh:

If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it?
No. The MPAA (or RIAA) claims that a lot of the people downloading movies and music have the resources to buy it but choose to steal it, instead. Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure.

That said, the numbers are clearly inflated since lots of people download far more movies and music than they would, in fact, purchase. For software, the inflation is far worse since people often won't pay for a retail copy but will pirate it. But again, it's not that they don't have the resources, it is that they don't think the software is worth the asking price.

So while the MPAA (or RIAA) is inflating the numbers, they do also have a case; they are losing money to piracy, just not the billions and billions they claim.

Note that this is my opinion based on what I've seen; I don't have industry studies at hand.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

Re: something I never understood

said by dda:

Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure.
Oh, Puhhlease....

Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA

Re: something I never understood

said by KrK:

Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money?
I'm sure it did motivate them but I find it very hard to believe that they had no resources and so had to pirate movies and music. The industry is losing money to piracy just not as much as they claim.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: something I never understood

said by dda:

I'm sure it did motivate them but I find it very hard to believe that they had no resources and so had to pirate movies and music.
Well I agree-- with some exceptions. I suspect most pirated stuff are things that people wouldn't of paid for anyway.... And I also believe that people who have copied DVD's or MP3's also still spend money buying some DVD's and Music they really like.

I strongly believe, that let's say piracy was somehow impossible, that it wouldn't lead to sudden massive sales by RIAA and MPAA members. I suspect 99% of the pirated content would simply be done without.

Teenagers are an exception.... they have a limited amount of money, but are large consumers of entertainment. I believe many teenagers copy music, games, movies etc because they really don't have the money to just buy them. Nonetheless this group still purchases large amounts of various entertainment, they just have to be selective.... and they often will pirate the rest.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
said by KrK:

said by dda:

Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure.
Oh, Puhhlease....

Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme.
The understatement of the year!!
"The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme."
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Jameson
Premium
join:2004-05-28
united state
kudos:1

Wow.

One bad PR after another..
NoOneButMe

join:2001-08-24
TX

Re: Wow.

Aint it kinda funny

Jameson
Premium
join:2004-05-28
united state
kudos:1

Re: Wow.

yep totally

Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13

Brilliant

and now to claim damages for the infringement

Cudni

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Do as we say...not as we do

It isn't our property, so that makes it okay to steal it. Worked for Sony, so it is good enough for the MPAA.

Both of the **AA's need to figure out that they need a new electronic method of delivery that is easy to use, cost effective for the users, and not tied down to the machine you use to download it.

Yes they can make money from the PSP, DVD, HD-DVD, and Bluray versions, but think how much more you could sell if everyone only had to buy it once. How about personal licensing, something along the lines of Steam. What you buy you can access from anywhere with your user name and password.
--
How hard does DRM have to bite before business abandon it?

•••••••

jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

1 edit

1 recommendation

mpaa caught again

Isn't it kind of funny the riaa and the mpaa keep getting in trouble. I find it absolutely hilarious and ironic that a company supposedly trying to thwart copyright pirates does so on their own accord. great news.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me


Edited: thanks Dadkins for catching the typo
old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: mpaa caught again

The **AA groups think the ONLY copyright/license that matters is their own. They are the **AA, no one would dare to sue them! (sarcasm) Just picture how funny it would be if Microsoft found out that the RIAA had hundreds of computers in their offices cloned off a single legal copy of Windows! Seriously, the **AA's entire model has fallen behind technological reality. Wasting the court system's time trying to enforce something instead of coming up with something that really works in the current market. Look at networks pulling content of iTunes leaving people with no legal way to download the shows then complaining about piracy. Sheesh

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

1 edit

What;'s good for the Goose

Nice to see the MPAA getting a taste of their own
medicine. Ah the irony of it all - infringing the
copyrights of the GNU GPL in order to release a tool
that is supposed to help curb copyright infringement over
p2p networks.

Of course it wouldn't be the first time that the MAFIAA
has done something like this. Remember Captain Copyright,
anyone? Or the Sony/BMG DRM Rootkit, parts of which used
code covered by the very same GNU GPL without providing
the source?

"MPAA don't f*ck with my s*it" - priceless!
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

how... 'surprising'

i'm hoping a day will come in which the MPAA and RIAA will get it's own personal congressional investigation to how they run themselves and their tactics. i'm sure a lot of people agree that the MPAA and RIAA needs a drastic change, personally i wouldn't mind if they were banished from existance.

DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA

Send the racketeers to jail

Extensive and repeated bribery, extortion, willful copyright infringement; .the MPAA is a criminal enterprise if there ever was one.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network!

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Re: Send the racketeers to jail

said by DotMac4:

Extensive and repeated bribery, extortion, willful copyright infringement; .the MPAA is a criminal enterprise if there ever was one.
Exactly the reason why they and the RIAA together are
commonly called the MAFIAA. La Cosa Nostra they may not
be, but in many ways they act like the real MAFIA.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
Expand your moderator at work

netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1

Stick it to them!

While I am not a file-sharer myself, I would like to see the MPAA get a taste of their own medicine. With all the lawsuits they have put against people - some people who never even owned a computer?!
--
Dell Inspiron 6000 (x1), Dell Inspiron 531s (x1), PowerBook TI 1GHz (x1), Emachine W3506 (x1), Home-made AMD 2600+ (x1) =+=+=+= Connected to the web via Sprint EV-DO Rev. A

jhebert121

join:2002-06-03
Traskwood, AR

Another loss for the corn farmers

I guess this is another loss for the corn farmers?

tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA

1 edit

Wow, no supporters yet?

Where are all the "morally superior" RIAA/MPAA supporters and the others who will excuse the xxAAs violation of others' copyright in protection of their copyright? Come on guys, you usually have such good responses..

This just goes to show that the xxAAs aren't "moral warriors", somehow interested in preventing "theft" and protecting the "rights of artists".. They freely disregard copyright when it is economically and technically beneficial for them -- just like they accuse average P2P user of doing.

As usual, they believe they're above the law. In reality, the law should frown more on them than the average user - the industry associations consist of lawyers; average P2P users are laypeople.

Copyright in this country is broken, and simple platitudes like "THEFT IS THEFT, DEAL WITH IT!" do nothing.

The RIAA/MPAA are interested in one thing: Protecting their obsolete, expensive, inefficient business model. Over and over again it's been shown that users WILL pay for content if the price is right and the RIGHTS are right with that content. All DRM does is punish the law-abiding customer, and all lawsuits do is target the naive and poor and give the xxAA's an even worse reputation.

I guarantee you those who "pirate" the most aren't worried one bit about lawsuits - they're not sharing a plethora of files on a college network - they know better. The ass'ns can continue to nab more clueless poor college students and grandmothers in the name of "protecting copyright".. but they're driving the nail into their own coffins.

Simple answer: offer an inexpensive, compulsory license service where the money goes direct to the digital distributors and artists. Cut out the middleman. Only problem then, is, the lawyer-lobbyists go away. Boo hoo.
Xure

join:2003-11-14
Beverly Hills, CA

Criminals!

The criminal RIAA/MPAA should be charged 150 000 per instance of infringing on the copyright protected work.


furlonium
Shut up baby, I know it

join:2002-05-08
Allentown, PA

Re: Criminals!

said by Xure:

The criminal RIAA/MPAA should be charged 150 000 per instance of infringing on the copyright protected work.

Or be forced to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount

»www.dontfuckwithmyshit.com/settle.php
--
»www.myspace.com/intranet

I once had a dream that Sean Connery stayed at my apt., and he had his laptop with Win98 on it, and he knew how to connect to my wireless network. I don't do drugs

TransitMan
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-05
Dayton, OH
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Prediction Comes True

Was predicted by your truly several days ago in this forum post - »Re: Xubuntu vs. Piracy

I knew from the looks of it that the MPAA was up to some nasty shenanigans, trying to skirt the GNU license for their own nefarious purposes.
--
PROUD TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CRUNCHENSTEIN ASSOCIATION AND THE HOST OF CRUNCHENSTEIN #2

Ahpuch

@verizon.net

Copying

When a Movie company makes a movie and there is a "Master" disc. That should belong to the company or group of people that make it. Now, the DVD gets copied mass produced and put out for the masses. Are the copyrights for the disk broken when the "Master" is duped for mass production, then sold at profit to the end user who might have already paid once to see it in the theater? Just a question that should needs some light shone on it. IMO when you go to the movies and PAY to see it there, when you leave you should be able to get a copy of the DVD when you leave. I mean you did just basically, rent the movie when you go to theater. If I'm going to pay today's going rate at the theater, I want more than just popcorn stuck between my teeth when I leave. Just my thoughts.

winsyrstrife
River City Bounce
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

Caught Red-Handed

and you are persuaded that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in the darkness, a corrector of the unreasonable ones, a teacher of babes and having the framework of the knowledge and of the Truth in the Law. Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You the one preaching "Do not steal", do you steal?...

Romans 2:19-21
--
"Suddenly everything is fainting, falling from a broken ladder's rung. There's a jolt exhilarating from the phone I'm holding...
I hear the words of what I'll become, how eager the hands that reach for love."
- Blind Melon - New Life