 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Nice Concept
| |
|  | 
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs:
 ·wavebroadband
| Re: Nice Concept The solution is to stop using inferior methods of downloading what essentially is illegal content.
If you're going to go illegal, do it right.
Usenet + Newzbin + SSL
--
Come play Mafia! | My Picture Blog | |
| | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: Nice Concept indeed. | |
| | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | What is Nezbin and SSL? | |
| | | | | | | | | albundyhere
join:2000-10-26
New York, NY | Re: Nice Concept haha, nice one for all the torrenters out there!  | |
| | | | | 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | yep, I detest your kind.
"Don't show 'em! Don't show 'em!"
Might as educate so your channel doesn't get killed cuz this goon goes around asking the wrong people the wrong questions ala **AA's, lol. | |
| | | | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by drew  :The solution is to stop using inferior methods of downloading what essentially is illegal content. If you're going to go illegal, do it right. Usenet + Newzbin + SSL Or + a VPN  | |
| | | |
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | Re: Nice Concept quote:
... not going after the criminal element or the fringes.
| |
| 
Kfedka
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA
| Overloaded? "Hello! BitBlinder has received quite a lot of attention lately and we need to keep the rate at which new people join the network sane. If too many people join it at the same time, there is a chance it will become unstable or slow for our current users. If you leave your email address with us, we'll send you an invitation as soon as possible so you can try it out too." | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Overloaded? said by Kfedka :"Hello! BitBlinder has received quite a lot of attention lately and we need to keep the rate at which new people join the network sane. If too many people join it at the same time, there is a chance it will become unstable or slow for our current users. If you leave your email address with us, we'll send you an invitation as soon as possible so you can try it out too." rofl. meh.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA | "give you back your online freedom." And people wonder why our world is collapsing, when people think theft is a freedom. | |
| | MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Metatron2008 :And people wonder why our world is collapsing, when people think theft is a freedom. Is it also collapsing when people don't know the legal difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement?" | |
| | | | | | | MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Metatron2008 :said by MightyPez :said by Metatron2008 :And people wonder why our world is collapsing, when people think theft is a freedom. Is it also collapsing when people don't know the legal difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement?" The same 'legal difference' that alot of judges also argue as theft and copyright infringement? Name a case. You brought the claim, now show a case where P2P use brought the criminal charge of theft and not the civil charge of copyright infringement. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Metatron2008 :You were not given permission to share it. LMAO. If I bought XYZ product then I can share it with whomever I desire. Except for you. I'd charge you for the privilege. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Metatron2008 :people like you act childish when presented with facts. We're still waiting for the names and/or cases of those judges that think that copyright infringement and theft are the same thing. Until then, I'd take it easy on accusing others of having a hard time with the word, "facts."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: "give you back your online freedom." I prefer "Sh!t or get off the pot", but it's all the same in the end. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by Metatron2008 :It can take awhile to find some things on the internet. Yeah, when it doesn't exist it takes forever. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa | So it's been a while. Have you found anything yet?
Or are you just blowing smoke... | |
| | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by major marco :said by Metatron2008 :You were not given permission to share it. LMAO. If I bought XYZ product then I can share it with whomever I desire. Except for you. I'd charge you for the privilege. You bought the right to listen to the music, not the rights to the music itself nor the rights to distribute it. There is a notable difference. | |
| | | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Matt :You bought the right to listen to the music, not the rights to the music itself nor the rights to distribute it. There is a notable difference. Funny, but sharing in the sense where I can play a CD in my vehicle and not have to deafen my riders so as not to commit the theft that you and others like you believe it to be, is not the same as distribution. But thanks for chiming in. I'll make a note that you're paying attention to this particular discussion as I'm waiting for the pertinent case citations from Metatron2008 that decided that the civil charge of copyright infringement was the same as criminal theft.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
| | | | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by major marco :said by Matt :You bought the right to listen to the music, not the rights to the music itself nor the rights to distribute it. There is a notable difference. Funny, but sharing in the sense where I can play a CD in my vehicle and not have to deafen my riders so as not to commit the theft that you and others like you believe it to be, is not the same as distribution. But thanks for chiming in. I'll make a note that you're paying attention to this particular discussion as I'm waiting for the pertinent case citations from Metatron2008 that decided that the civil charge of copyright infringement was the same as criminal theft. As much as you might try to rationalize it, there is such a thing as fair use. Not what YOU consider fair use, but what the owner of the rights considers fair use. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That however does not give you the right to download a copy of the music for free or provide a copy of the music to others for free.
As to the issue of theft/infringement, you're splitting hairs and trying to get technical to rationalize your actions. The bottom line is that when you take something that doesn't belong to you, it is theft. If it allows you to sleep better at night because in the strictest legal definition of the word, it's infringement rather than theft, that's great. | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by Matt :As much as you might try to rationalize it, there is such a thing as fair use. Not what YOU consider fair use, but what the owner of the rights considers fair use. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That however does not give you the right to download a copy of the music for free With respect, always, I think you may need to research Fair Use.
The owners of rights don't get any say in it. This is by design. If the owners give permission, then that's a license. Fair Use, on the other hand, is a legal way to use content without permission or payment, but its purposes are limited.
With Fair Use, it's the public's ability to use and distribute without any permission -- or even over the right holder's objection.
This certainly may include the right to download a copy for free, again depending on the use. For example, I used Fair Use when I legally copied and distributed this video: »"We interrupt this program..." to remind you to hate FIOS
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | | 
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
3 edits | said by major marco :said by Matt :You bought the right to listen to the music, not the rights to the music itself nor the rights to distribute it. There is a notable difference. Funny, but sharing in the sense where I can play a CD in my vehicle and not have to deafen my riders so as not to commit the theft that you and others like you believe it to be, is not the same as distribution. But thanks for chiming in. I'll make a note that you're paying attention to this particular discussion as I'm waiting for the pertinent case citations from Metatron2008 that decided that the civil charge of copyright infringement was the same as criminal theft. Sharing is as old as the wheel, when VCR and audio tapes were lent/copied and nobody got their panties twisted in a bunch.
That was because back then there was no infrastructure for rapid coping and uploading to the internet (that to some people defeats the purpose of buying it).
That sharing of the "old VCR tape" still exist today and no one has a problem with it.
The "no no" thing to do is making a copy of the disc you purchased (or downloaded) and giving to all you riders in the car telling them that they don't need to buy the disc because there is a easier way to get it.
The real disturbing issue is that most of the people chose to download content instead of buying it.
And is actually faster and easier that going to a BM store to purchase it, you could do it at 3AM and will not cost you a cent (maybe the blank CDR/DVDR).
I blame this on human greed the moranity of the content executives in not keeping up with the digital age(they choose to kill Napster instead of buying it an adapt the business model).
Don´t feel misunderstood I know that being from Socialist Republic of California makes you feel that you are entitle to every thing for free, preferably paid with state funding.
--
Give the world changes at a pace it can absorb. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Matt :said by major marco :said by Metatron2008 :You were not given permission to share it. LMAO. If I bought XYZ product then I can share it with whomever I desire. Except for you. I'd charge you for the privilege. You bought the right to listen to the music, not the rights to the music itself nor the rights to distribute it. There is a notable difference.
Not entirely true. I can sell my previously purchased pre-recorded music CDs, cassettes and Vinyl records. The recording industry tried to block such sales and they lost. | |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by Metatron2008 :You were not given permission to share it. That would be like me sharing your money or your car to the world. If you weren't given permission, you aren't entitled to it. I wrote this lyric this morning:
"How can they 'spect me to be cool and professional?
Its as hot as a Republican in a Confessional!"
(I know, it sucks.)
Now, if someone reads that -- guess what -- it's still mine. I still have it. If someone sends that to someone else, I still have it, too. And so on.
If you "share" my money or car, I'm out THAT money or car (at least until you return it). If you share my song, I've lost nothing. That's why copyright infringement is different than theft.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| | | 
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Ford doesn't give me permission to share my car, but I still let people barrow it. The Fed doesn't give me permission to let people barrow my money, but I still lend money.
Am I entitled to give permission to let people barrow things I own? Copyright infringement is not theft, that is why it is a civil case not a criminal case. Does that make it right to do? No.
But I do think old business models are to blame just as much as people who infringe on copyright. RIAA and the MPAA want to keep their own models alive as long as they can. But the world is changing faster then they can adapt, if they are even trying to adapt at all.
But back to the point about permission to share it, your own argument pointed out that no one gives you permission, yet you are free to do it with both items you claimed without being brought to court. You can share your money and car with the world without ever worrying about someone taking you to court, because yes you are entitled to share what you own. | |
| | | | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | | 
ytstein Jakobsen
@online.no
| If I take your food, you no longer have any food. If I copy your food, you still have food. The difference is notable. English definition of theft is to take something away from you, so you dont have it any more. It is very spesific.
To those that compare copying with stealing, and immaterial works with property - think about the very word "culture".
Culture is something that is shared. Our language, the names we use - someone created the words that we now use, but they are not - and should not be - someones property. That negates the very concept of culture. Our children build upon and add to what the generation that came before already made. Now that copyright is lifetime + 70 years, atleast 4 generations has to pass before the works can be used to create - and by then, most of it is useless because noone knows the names of the people that are referred to, they wont even recognize the cars or mobile phones that are used.
How relevant is a 100 year old newsreel to anyone but a historian?
Filesharing is the tip of the Copyright wars, and the players are not pirates vs creators, its copyright vs copyleft. | |
| | | | 
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO | You mean a copy of my car or a copy of my money right? | |
| | | 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| While I know that you know the difference, your statement makes it appear that you don't know the difference between sharing one's own artistic creation and sharing someone else's artistic creation, thereby claiming it as one's own by so doing.
Regardless of legal terminology, such behavior is theft--theft of someone else's right to decide how their "art" is used and distributed. I believe whole-heartedly in fair use both for CDs/music and DVDs/movies. If I buy, for example, a movie on DVD, then I own the DVD, and I own a license to view the movie in any way, shape, and form that I want to (fair use)--though "the law" says fair use does not apply to DVDs in the same way that it applies to CDs (the last time I checked anyway), so bad law... bad. That license, however, does not give me the right to "share" the movie with anyone else such that one or more copies are created for someone else's personal use. There's "sharing", and then there's "sharing". Sharing what belongs to someone else is no less theft just because there's some legal terminology that differentiates between the two. A person either knows that something he/she is doing is wrong, or he/she doesn't. Awareness or the lack thereof does not alter the reality of the situation.
People who steal as a matter of course are going to steal regardless of things like DRM. DRM is pointless and worthless, just as are many of the laws related to copyright. People who believe in fair use believe in respecting "copyright", pitifully stupid laws not withstanding; such people do not steal.
The RIAA sucks. Sadly, the MPAA has not learned the lessons that they should have from the RIAA's behavior. Treat people like criminals, and that's basically what you'll get. Respect your customers, and they'll tend to respect you. It's not too late for them to learn that lesson... I hope. | |
| | | |
ystein Jakobsen
@online.no
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." I wont comment on your entire post, but I will comment on one thing - the "artists right to decide how his work is used and distributed".
Remember that Copyright is an economic tool, not anything coupled with human rights. Its an economic insentive, not a means of cencorship or control.
If you compare intellectual goods with other goods, can you imagine the creator having a god-given right to decide how the products they manufacture are used or distributed? That the manufacturer of a can of beans get to decide how those beans are distributed, or how those beans are used? Ofcource not! Thats ludicrus... the problem is only that copyright was created in a time when the creators subject to copyright law were few, and the means of distribution scarce.
Now that every use produces a copy, a law governing copying also governs use. That was never the intention, because computers were not invented when copyright was!
The only intrinsic right that a creator has is that of attribution, where appropriate. The notion that a creator has a right to deny someone else to build upon his work is an affront to all that went before and created the very culture and technology that we live in. The technology that gave us electricity and cellphones, not to mention pianos and speakers all came about because someone discovered the basic workings of our universe.
What kind of world would we have if Newton, Benjamin Franklin and Einstein "owned" the concepts, inventions and natural laws that they discovered? However, if you forget to attribute the discoveries and works of others you are taking something away that cannot be replaced, so that would be stealing. Attribution is essential, and in a network economy is equivalent to profit.
The creator should NOT be able to deny others to build upon his work, the creator should NOT be able to deny distribution of his work...
However - the creator should be attributed any new work, and get a fair share of any revenue generated by the new work. Similarly, the creator of an invention or artistic expression should get a fair share in any revenue generated by distribution of a particular expression. This notion is not radical at all, but its very different from the existing world, where 90% of all revenue from cultural goods (or rather, entertainment) in the US goes through major media houses, all represented by the RIAA and MPAA, and they get to keep this position by denying the abundance that the internet allows, simply by denying their works (that they control through contracts that strip the rights from creators and transfers them to the distributor) to be available through the new channels. That is a situation that no concerned citizen should allow. Remember that Napster offered no less than ** 1 BILLION DOLLARS** just to be able to keep operating... thats a ludicrously high number, but the content mafia were afraid of loosing control. | |
| | | | |
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Re: "give you back your online freedom." said by ystein Jakobsen :
I wont comment on your entire post, but I will comment on one thing - the "artists right to decide how his work is used and distributed".
Sorry... this is as far as I read. A movie is made to be viewed. It's put on a DVD to be distributed (forgetting other methods for the moment). As a purchaser of said DVD you have purchased the right to view the movie whenever you wish, for your own personal use, which may include inviting some other(s) to join you. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to make as many copies as you wish for your personal use and convenience (such as putting a copy on your laptop for the convenience of watching it "on the go"). You have no right to provide additional copies for anyone else's use. If you think you do, then you're wrong. If you think this is just a matter of "attribution", then you're wrong. But, I don't care what you do or what you think--your life is yours to live. I only care what I do and what I think--my life. Copyright was not originally intended to be perpetual, so they've gotten pretty screwed up; but for at least a 20-year period (approximately), I can accept that the owner has the right to say yea or nay as to whether his/her work is used and distributed in a manner that satisfies fair use & copyright. You do not have the right to distribute someone else's work against his/her/their wishes just because it's easy to do so. Copyright law is screwed up, but that doesn't make it right to abrogate someone's else rights. Don't make excuses for bad behavior. | |
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by ystein Jakobsen :
The only intrinsic right that a creator has is that of attribution, where appropriate.
No, the only natural right someone who has an idea has to that idea is nothing.
We as a society have chosen to give creative types an economic incentive to produce works through copyrights and patents. Sadly, people have turned this on its head and now have this ridiculous notion that just because I write something I have an intrinsic right to control the distribution of that writing. This is exactly backwards. The artificial right of control comes from our desire to reward creative endeavor. The reward does not come from some natural right to control your works.
Intrinsically, the only control I have over my creative thoughts is to keep them locked up in my head. (or in my drawer, such that if someone spirits them away to make copies they have committed theft)
What's next? The tradesmen who built your house charging you a license fee if you have more than the originally understood number of occupants? Hell, with the attack on the first sale doctrine fully underway, perhaps you will be unable to sell a house without the permission of the tradesmen some time in the not too distant future.
My point is that intellectual property can not be stolen in the normal sense (without theft of a physical object containing the embodiment of that work), since it cannot be taken away from you. It can merely be copied without permission.
Until people understand the design goals and implementation of our system of copyright and patent these discussions will be utterly pointless.
Note that I'm all for copyrights and patents, I just think they have gotten out of control. Copyright lengths are ridiculous, and patents have been expanded to cover far broad a spectrum of ideas. This is largely thanks to lobbyists greasing palms in Washington. The way they scream about it (and many people here!) it's no small wonder we made it so long without ridiculously long copyright lengths and overly broad application of the patent system.
Ultimately, that can be laid at the feet of another of our useful but vastly broken systems. The Corporation. For profit corporations who build their entire revenue stream on control of creative works will of course have no choice but to do everything in their power to expand the scope of that which can be protected and the length of time for which it is protected.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| couple points:
1-since when is our world collapsing? i suppose this goes along with 'the world is ending soon', which has been perpetuatued for centuries.
2-since when is copyright infringement the same as the theft of a material good?
3-even scarier, since when did the world revolve around the entertainment industry. that must be why the world is collapse, the entertainment industry is having trouble charging outrageous prices for crap. | |
| | Endgame
Your member at work
Premium
join:2005-07-07
USA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | There is not enough money out there for us commoners to pay for it because greed has run amok in the world. The super rich stole all of our golden eggs. Thank goodness for BitRobinHood!
--
When you follow the money, you usually find the truth | |
| | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
1 edit | Don't bother arguing about honesty or ethics on this site. We're outnumbered by the scum. But yes, the "give you back your online freedom" line is obviously BS. | |
| 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Wait for it..... 5 4 3 2..till someone claims P2P is bad..o ..to late. | |
|
Sir Meowmix III
@windstream.net
 from:
GOLFnSUN
| More mumblings from theives. It's always amazing to see the great technical lengths thieves with a broken moral compass will go to to circumvent detection and justify their actions.
I'll be pedantic if you want and assert that it is blatant theft so save you're time trying to convince those with a sense of morality that it's infringement which is somehow less heinous. | |
| |
See 40 replies to this post | |
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| Court confirms downloading is not a crime? Apparently the RIAA hired a company named MediaSentry to find unauthorized distributors of copyrighted material. MediaSentry would download a copy of the material and record the IP of the machine providing the material. This information was turned over to the RIAA who would then take the owner of the IP to court.
It seems the defendant in the case was trying to say that MediaSentry's actions were illegal and get that evidence thrown out of court. The judge did not agree with that argument.
»copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com
(emphasis mine)
quote:
And MediaSentry did not violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 because "MediaSentry was clearly a party to the electronic communication with Defendant" and "MediaSentry did not intercept the communications for the purpose of committing a crime or tort."
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the judge has stated that MediaSentry committed no crimes (or tort) by downloading the file as evidence against the defendant. | |
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Court confirms downloading is not a crime? said by powerhog :I'm no lawyer, but it seems the judge has stated that MediaSentry committed no crimes (or tort) by downloading the file as evidence against the defendant. Basically that said that what MediaSentry did was not a wiretap or interception because it was a party to the communication. Therefore, it didn't require any special legal authority.
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us···00-.html
That cleared MediaSentry of one of the specific federal complaints about its actions, and the judge was right in that situation IMHO. It wasn't a clearance for everything that MediaSentry did, including violation of state laws and regulations. (That all said, I have a hard time with the whole "MediaSentry needs a state license" defense).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | | | | | |
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | Re: Court confirms downloading is not a crime? I tried to limit the quote to just the bit about the legality of 'downloading'. But I interpreted the article the same as you... the judge over-ruled all challenges to the evidence gathered by MediaSentry. | |
| | GameGuy369
join:2004-07-09
Olathe, KS
clubs:
| End Argument I am going to post the most logical, irrefutable argument here.
Is file sharing illegal. Sure. Is it wrong? Absolutely. Is it bad for anybody? Nope.
Here's why. If you look at sales of games/music/movies, they have actually gone UP along with P2P use. How can that be? Easy. Word of mouth - the ultimate advertising tool.
I wont lie. I download everything I can. I constantly look for movies from axxo, fxm, fxm, etc so i can watch it for free. But what happens after I watch/play/listen to whatever it is I download? I tell EVERYBODY about it. Most of my friends dont have the patience to learn how to use BitTorrent, so they go and buy/rent the game/movie/album/whatever.
I think the only people this hurts are those who try to sell crap and want to make a ton of money off of it.
How many times have you bought an album because you like one song, and discover the album sucks. Or how many times does a movie preview show the only funny parts in the entire movie and the rest of it blows? Or a game, with a recent example of Prototype. This game was ridiculously hyped up, and supposed to crush inFamous. Well as it turns out, game sucks, and inFamous is 100x better in every way.
I think P2P puts more pressure on these people to create something more polished and stop trying to sell fakes.
Look at it this way. Everyone downloaded The Dark Knight, or the new Star Trek movie. Their sales were insane. Did P2P really hurt them whatsoever? "Taken" was released in DVD quality MONTHS before the THEATRE release (I watched the movie back in November), and it was a great movie. So I told everyone they need to see it when it comes out.
And my final argument is simple. Why am I going to download DRM-ridden crap when I can generally get higher quality stuff, without the junk, for free. Numerous game have been released that the DRM would actually corrupt the OS, or crash the game, when I can jump on BitTorrent and get a better running version that doesnt require me to have a disc in the drive to run.
There's a reason a service like Steam is so successful. It's not because its tougher to pirate those games. But because it provides a service where I can download my games from any computer I log into, and it even keeps settings for my games.
In the end, if they spent this money to come up with innovative ideas rather than fight P2P, this would be a happier world.
/thread | |
| |
HandOfDoom
@q9.net | Re: End Argument Def agree with you. | |
| | | | 
DrDubious
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Olean, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Crime of the Century??? My first reactions is: Yes freedom and privacy from Corporate and Government Snooping (If that were even a possibility).
But I simply cannot understand the hundreds of complaints about illegal download and copyright infringement [Here and elsewhere].
Who are all you people? You cannot ALL be artists, software developers or content creators.
As an ordinary user, I don't really give a damn one way or the other: I'll pay if I have to pay and I won't if I don't have to. But it's no huge moral dilemma to me vs. all the other ills of the world.
Could it be that these millions of irate anti-piracy posts we see everywhere are really the product of some Corporate propaganda machine?
Excuse me while I adjust my tinfoil hat  | |
| | 
Rocky67
Pencil Neck Geek
Premium
join:2005-01-13
Orange, CA | Re: Crime of the Century??? I'm shocked, shocked to learn that astroturfers and paid corporate shills post in these discussions.
--
Pain is weakness leaving the body | |
| | | Pete_64
join:2001-12-20
KingstonON
| Re: Crime of the Century??? we better remove all those photocopying machines in the libraries, because when I photocopie a page out of that book, I am stealing.
Courts Ruled in Canada several years ago that File sharing was no different then photocopy machines in Libraries,
»forums.canadiancontent.net/compu···ada.html
someone correct me if this has been over turned. | |
| | | |
|
|
BitBlinder: Like TOR, But Faster
·
