Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
More p2p hurdles for you guys in the US...
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
Remember when you're playing Asteroids and you shoot a few of those big rocks. Yeah... that.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
torrentz.com....man's best friend.
"An old man dies, a young girl lives, fair trade." - Bruce Willis from Sin City.
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
I use torrentz. Big shit. Suddenly torrentz.com is more important, huh, Zeus? "Oh, but I'll just look it up on ISOHunt." Not anymore bitches!
And since torrentz isn't even remotely illegal, it's not getting shut down.
And since torrentz isn't even remotely illegal, it's not getting shut down.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Umm, I live in a good country, remember? We luvs our ISOhunt.....SineSwiper wrote:I use torrentz. Big shit. Suddenly torrentz.com is more important, huh, Zeus? "Oh, but I'll just look it up on ISOHunt." Not anymore bitches!
And since torrentz isn't even remotely illegal, it's not getting shut down.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
The asteroid analogy assumes that 10 little sites are more useful than 1 big site, which is almost certainly false. It also assumes the creation of 10 little sites from the fall of 1 big site occurs spontaneously with no resources required, which again is false (or they would have been created already).
Suffice to say things will tend to suck for piracy if all the big torrent sites fragment into a lot of little ones.
Suffice to say things will tend to suck for piracy if all the big torrent sites fragment into a lot of little ones.
The RIAA, MPAA needs to remember this...Squash 1, 2 more pop-up.
"An old man dies, a young girl lives, fair trade." - Bruce Willis from Sin City.
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
Is this supposed to destroy the sites just like it did for torrentspy? Oh wait... I still go to torrentspy because international proxies are painfully easy to find and use.
At worst it means fewer people... but in most cases when a site goes down people aren't saying "well, that's it-- no more torrents for me... guess I'll go to Best Buy and purchase my music for $20/album" they'll just go somewhere else. And by the time they end up half way killing torrents we'll have a new protocol better than BT.
At worst it means fewer people... but in most cases when a site goes down people aren't saying "well, that's it-- no more torrents for me... guess I'll go to Best Buy and purchase my music for $20/album" they'll just go somewhere else. And by the time they end up half way killing torrents we'll have a new protocol better than BT.
You guys who have the motto 'piracy will find a way' really need to look at the attendence for World Series of Poker after congress made it illegal to transfer money online. Yeah you can do it through an international thing but that didn't stop 2007 WSOP being the first one where the attendence has declined.
The more tech savvy you are the less likely you're to be affected but having torrent sites shut down will affect you eventually if it happens enoguh. I don't think torrent sites are currently the major focus of the various copyright owners at this point because the best you can do is shut a site down and throw some admins in jail. On the other hand if you sue people who make stuff available to download it will be a more effective way to stop things at the source.
For the most part the copyright owners don't actually care you download as long as they can figure out who's doing the uploading. Since people prefer to leech than contribute if they got some legal precedent to go after the uploaders, it'd end the P2P things really quickly. The courts will decide whether this actually happens...
The more tech savvy you are the less likely you're to be affected but having torrent sites shut down will affect you eventually if it happens enoguh. I don't think torrent sites are currently the major focus of the various copyright owners at this point because the best you can do is shut a site down and throw some admins in jail. On the other hand if you sue people who make stuff available to download it will be a more effective way to stop things at the source.
For the most part the copyright owners don't actually care you download as long as they can figure out who's doing the uploading. Since people prefer to leech than contribute if they got some legal precedent to go after the uploaders, it'd end the P2P things really quickly. The courts will decide whether this actually happens...
Of course, there is plenty of need for a legal backing to fix the laws. However, in a market where the bad guys have the most money, guerrilla warfare is more effective.
Gambling is the opposite. Casinos will have no problem striking the law off the records, if it affects profits enough. And what law says it's "illegal to transfer money online"? I transfer money online all the time. It's called online billpay.
Gambling is the opposite. Casinos will have no problem striking the law off the records, if it affects profits enough. And what law says it's "illegal to transfer money online"? I transfer money online all the time. It's called online billpay.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
The gambling law is something like it's illegal to transfer money to a gambling service online for citizens of the United States within US. Of course you can go through someone outside the US but that's too much work for a lot of people. This is why WSOP attendence declined because it's a lot harder to get your $10k mini tournament to qualify. If you look at the attendence numbers the main event has been going up by at least 10% each year, and then the law passes and it went down by about 20% that year.
While it's true there's plenty of people with money opposed to gambling (the non online gambling companies themselves for one), there's also people with money that support gambling (like the online gambling companies) in addition of your guerrila fighters. On the other hand with stuff like torrents you're looking at there's practically no one with a lot of money that supports it. So if you look at financial backing the torrent sites certainly are worse off than the gambling sites, as the gambling sites actually have a lot of money, while torrent sites do not.
In fact if you make a lot of money on a torrent site, you'd get hit by criminal copyright infringement which is very hard to defend. There's some grey area about whether you have the right to give away something you didn't own for free. It is much harder to defend yourself if you're giving away stuff you don't own in exchange for money. Every case I know of where the guy uploading stuff and makes money from it ends up easily in copyright holder's favor. It is the ones where no money is being made that is actually contested.
As far as I know most of the debate focuses around privacy. You'll find very few people actually argue it's alright to be downloading or uploading stuff you didn't own. The general problem is that the measures and steps needed to find out you're uploading all this stuff will be too intrusive to privacy. It's not clear to me how this will resolve since I'm not a lawyer, but the debate is not the right to download versus not. It's a matter of whether copyright is worth upholding in exchange for some pretty invasive stuff to know what you're doing with your computer. I don't think the Supreme Court is hearing anything related to those so it seems like no one really knows what's supposed to happen at this point. The outcome is certainly far from certain.
While it's true there's plenty of people with money opposed to gambling (the non online gambling companies themselves for one), there's also people with money that support gambling (like the online gambling companies) in addition of your guerrila fighters. On the other hand with stuff like torrents you're looking at there's practically no one with a lot of money that supports it. So if you look at financial backing the torrent sites certainly are worse off than the gambling sites, as the gambling sites actually have a lot of money, while torrent sites do not.
In fact if you make a lot of money on a torrent site, you'd get hit by criminal copyright infringement which is very hard to defend. There's some grey area about whether you have the right to give away something you didn't own for free. It is much harder to defend yourself if you're giving away stuff you don't own in exchange for money. Every case I know of where the guy uploading stuff and makes money from it ends up easily in copyright holder's favor. It is the ones where no money is being made that is actually contested.
As far as I know most of the debate focuses around privacy. You'll find very few people actually argue it's alright to be downloading or uploading stuff you didn't own. The general problem is that the measures and steps needed to find out you're uploading all this stuff will be too intrusive to privacy. It's not clear to me how this will resolve since I'm not a lawyer, but the debate is not the right to download versus not. It's a matter of whether copyright is worth upholding in exchange for some pretty invasive stuff to know what you're doing with your computer. I don't think the Supreme Court is hearing anything related to those so it seems like no one really knows what's supposed to happen at this point. The outcome is certainly far from certain.
Well, trackers have nothing to do with the content. They aren't giving away copyrighted material. They are giving away links and IP to sources of copyrighted material. It's like suing Google for copyright infringement.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I've read a lot of the lawsuits between *AA and guys uploading. If you get called for uploading 1000 songs and is asked to pay $1 billion or go to jail, the defense strategy invariably goes around two things:
1. You try to prove it really isn't you. Sometimes it really isn't you, and then you can try to sue them back. Even if it is really you, you can try to argue there's no way to conclusively prove it is you. Obviously the more you can prove it might not be you the more likely you'll get away with it.
2. You try to prove the evidence they obtained was done illegally. If you've taken some precautions while uploading stuff it would take some effort to get the necessary info. The process of doing so may break some privacy laws.
Pretty much you either say I didn't do it, or try to turn it into a privacy thing, or both. You'll never say I did it but the copyright system is corrupt. Doing so will probably get you nailed really fast.
1. You try to prove it really isn't you. Sometimes it really isn't you, and then you can try to sue them back. Even if it is really you, you can try to argue there's no way to conclusively prove it is you. Obviously the more you can prove it might not be you the more likely you'll get away with it.
2. You try to prove the evidence they obtained was done illegally. If you've taken some precautions while uploading stuff it would take some effort to get the necessary info. The process of doing so may break some privacy laws.
Pretty much you either say I didn't do it, or try to turn it into a privacy thing, or both. You'll never say I did it but the copyright system is corrupt. Doing so will probably get you nailed really fast.
Search engine falls under the Safe Harbor exception because the primary purpose of a search engine isn't to commit copyright infringement. It is difficult to argue this for torrent sites because for the most part the primary purpose of such sites is to commit copyright infringement. Here the wording of your site is very important. If you say come to my Torrent Site to get the latest movies, TV shows, and CDs it will be very hard to prove your site's primary purpose is not copyright infringement. Of course just because you say your site is meant for studying in long lost ancient scripture isn't going to fool anyone if 99% of the traffic involves copyrighted material, but at least you'd be better off than outright admitting it.
Facilitating copyright infringement is just as bad as copyright infringement unless you're in Sweden like the Pirate Bay. The laws on faciliating copyright infringement varies from country to country but US tends to have the harshest ones. This is why a lot of sites are based in weird places. Being in a spot like Sweden doesn't mean your site is automatically safe, but it is a lot safer compared to being in the US. Unless your site is based in China or some country that doesn't care for the WTO they can always just send someone locally. And if your site is based in China, there's probably performance issues to worry about...
Facilitating copyright infringement is just as bad as copyright infringement unless you're in Sweden like the Pirate Bay. The laws on faciliating copyright infringement varies from country to country but US tends to have the harshest ones. This is why a lot of sites are based in weird places. Being in a spot like Sweden doesn't mean your site is automatically safe, but it is a lot safer compared to being in the US. Unless your site is based in China or some country that doesn't care for the WTO they can always just send someone locally. And if your site is based in China, there's probably performance issues to worry about...