|
United States5162 Posts
On January 23 2012 12:09 xBillehx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. It's kind of silly to take the accusations as anything more than accusations until the case is decided. I mean, nowhere have we seen the supposed e-mails, no where have Megaupload employees admitted anything in public. All we have is the investigation's accusations that still need to be proven in court. Unless you've seen otherwise, and I'd be really interested if you have, I don't understand why you come off so aggressive with only accusations to back your viewpoint.
He's aggressive because people come in here with no fucking clue whats going on and start spouting nonsense. If you want to discuss the validity of what the FBI claims then I think there's a decent discussion to be had. However, most people are 100% ignorant and think that what youtube does and what megaupload is accused of doing are even close to the same level.
And filesonic and megaupload are no different except that maybe the filesonic owners werent stupid enough to admit everything in writing.
|
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck?
|
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore.
|
megaupload then filesonic??? this is sooo bad. making amazing sites like holyfuckingshit40000 shut down.
wtf does it not matter that internet bills are being stopped?
|
not really surprised about this, I'm thinking we will see quite a few other sites doing the same very soon.
To be honest i am glad they are finally cracking down on the worst offenders, maybe now the idiots who want to push SOPA will notice that we don't actually need SOPA. What we need is some effort to actually enforce the laws currently in effect.
Ps: To the people still trying to defend Megaupload I'd highly recommend you either attack the validity of the evidence or the legality of how they got said evidence. You can hardly claim that a site operates under the safe harbour rules, if the prosecution has emails in their evidence which show they knowingly ignored those.
Personally i have no idea how they obtained their evidence, but I am fairly sure those details will come out in court. Until then i have to consider the allegations as unproven, but frankly it's hard to deny that megaupload had quite a stash of illegal content.
|
On January 23 2012 12:29 Tula wrote:
To be honest i am glad they are finally cracking down on the worst offenders, maybe now the idiots who want to push SOPA will notice that we don't actually need SOPA. What we need is some effort to actually enforce the laws currently in effect.
Have you ever heard of what the MPAA / RIAA actually want to push through as legislation or are you actually high right now?
|
RIP Filesonic. Even if this were a temporary measure, they have ensured that no-one will ever pay or consider their services again. I certainly won't.
|
On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself.
Calm down bro.
First thing I did was read the indictment, it would have been the first thing everyone did (or the summary at least).
I'm pointing out that you can't justify anti-music piracy and say Pandora and Youtube is still there. Regardless of what the owners do with the site, the users are still using it in the same way and the services it provides still behave in the same way. The safe harbor laws does not mean anything when it comes to the justification of illegally downloading from youtube over megaupload or filesonic.
Also, how can you know that Pandora is not doing the same as Megaupload? You can't, unless you raid their mansion first.
You should realise that the investigators did not know most of the details that is in the indictment until they did the raid. When they did they struck gold, they got exactly what they wanted, then used the information to justify their case. Nearly all of the shit that will be used against them will be stuff like the emails, which was only discovered after the raid. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for this raid, Megaupload would have had a chance at not losing anything at all. Also just because I email someone to do something, isn't enough evidence to say that the user who received the email actually committed the action. I'm not going to jail for writing in a diary that I killed someone (at least in Australia), I might go to court though.
I haven't found much evidence in the indictment that Megaupload did not adhere to the safe harbor laws, what would have been known pre-raid.
For example: Megaupload deleted material, by blocking the URL, and not deleting the file. However how could anyone know this? As far as I'm concerned, if you block the URL you are achieving the same thing. People can't download that file. Technically they are in the wrong, but how can you know this until you raid the place first? This kind of case possibly opens the flood gates for the Music Groups with the help of Feds to just raid filesharing sites just on a hunch.
Not once did I ever say Megaupload didn't deserve what was coming to them. The court hasn't made a decision yet, Megaupload probably won't come off scott free, that is not to say that they won't, and we know that not all the accusations will hold. As the MU lawyer described, it is a civil case disguised as a criminal case. Megaupload is still innocent until proven guilty.
The safe harbor laws are there because as I pointed out earlier, nobody has the resources to control it perfectly. People can just as illegally do what they did on megaupload or filesonic, as on youtube. Safe harbor laws still hasn't stopped the armada of music companies from trying to sue ISPs, and they just keep escalating it till they get what they want, the law means shit all to them.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-copyright-case-in-high-court/story-e6frgakx-1226210317211)
Note that iiNet hasn't done anything wrong (iirc they have won many court-cases already). The overall court case possibly taking years.
You can't say to me with a straight face that you have never listened to music off a channel that wasn't affiliated with an artist, therefore you are listening to the music illegally, that is "bad for the artist". If it wasn't WMG wouldn't be blocking music on OVAs.
What I'm pointing out that there is no clear cut justification to what you have been mentioning. You can't just put this in black and white and recommend youtube and pandora, and imply that people should just get over themselves with megaupload and filesonic.
|
On January 23 2012 11:59 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite? Why would anyone care what you have to say when you haven't done an ounce of due diligence and are completely ignorant of the situation at hand? Your opinion is completely worthless in this discussion until you read up on it. If you made comments like that in the strategy forum without having watched the replay, you'd get banned.
Craton you're right ! I too have seen many megaupload files that had been '' removed due to copyright violation ''. But if you read the indictment they explain that megaupload didn't actually remove the file from their servers but removed the ( I forget what they called it ) but let's say they removed the '' megaupload url '', but the file stayed on the server.
|
On January 23 2012 12:25 dmnum wrote:
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore.
Agree. This topic isn't really the place to discuss piracy in general, but I think it's obvious to all involved that it's not something that's going to go away, regardless of how many times it is forced to find new avenues of distribution.
I would happily use a revamped iTunes with a shareware sort of business model -- download an album and keep it free of charge for a week, after which time your account is unable to play those songs unless you buy them for, say, 10 cents each instead whatever they are now. If you gave me that and cloud storage in the same program, I would never think of pirating an album again.
Similarly, from time to time I'll download a single-player game (I don't play multiplayer games with the exception of SC2, and even that I don't really play; I haven't been online since Season 2). I'll play it for a few hours, and if it's not really fun, it immediately gets uninstalled and the ISO gets deleted. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. Otherwise, after I've played through the whole game once, or at least most of it, I decide whether or not it's something I'd like to actually own and play again in the future. If so, it gets purchased on Steam the next time it goes on sale, and the ISO gets deleted. I think that's pretty common behavior.
Anyone who says piracy isn't about the price of things is full of shit. People don't download copyrighted material because they're upset about DRM, or because they find it inconvenient to get it from legal vendors, it's because when presented with the option of obtaining any and all of the media you could ever want for zero dollars with zero consequences by tapping a few keys and waiting an hour, it's pretty hard to say no.
More on topic: yeah, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this is sort of news in the near future, but I highly doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference.
|
On January 23 2012 13:02 crackcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:59 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite? Why would anyone care what you have to say when you haven't done an ounce of due diligence and are completely ignorant of the situation at hand? Your opinion is completely worthless in this discussion until you read up on it. If you made comments like that in the strategy forum without having watched the replay, you'd get banned. Craton you're right ! I too have seen many megaupload files that had been '' removed due to copyright violation ''. But if you read the indictment they explain that megaupload didn't actually remove the file from their servers but removed the ( I forget what they called it ) but let's say they removed the '' megaupload url '', but the file stayed on the server.
This is actually standard practice with a lot of websites. Certain types of databases perform much better when items are not deleted, due to the search algorithm (See Hash vs BTree). Even Facebook did this with deleted posts and personal information.
A case could be made that they were doing this for performance, because it achieved the same thing, they did not realise they were doing anything wrong.
|
This is going to inevitably turn into a full on piracy debate, so I'll just drop this quote in that I saw a few days back on CNN, of all places.
In business you have to understand pricing. If you charge too much, people will come up with alternate solutions. They will find different venders.
For example, if you tried to charge $10 for a bottle of water, people would just get it from the tap. Even if you somehow owned the rights to drinking water, if the people can turn a faucet and get nearly the same thing for free, they are gong to.
Digital content delivery has changed everything. The ability to get things instantly over the internet has changed practical business models. Things like packaging, shipping, hard-copy productions and storefronts are no longer needed to deliver movies, books and music. There's an almost literal digital faucet piped into everyone's home and smart phone. Yet, the people producing content still want to charge the same prices they did under the old model. It won't work. It's too easy to turn a faucet and get it for free.
The only solution is to charge a price people are willing to pay. And when coming up with a price, you have to look at how easy it is for people to get your content for less somewhere else. Those are harsh business realities. You can call the people who refuse to pay your high prices pirates and criminals, but what they really are is consumers making basic purchasing decisions. Should I pay $39 for this movie, or should I grab a hacked copy from some foreign site for free; the consumer will ask themselves.
Netflix has proved beyond doubt that people will pay to download movies if doing so is made easier and the quality is better than pirated versions. Streaming live from TV, watching on any computer, so on and so forth. Spotify, Pandora, and iTunes repeatedly have proven that people are willing to pay money or accept advertisements, for music they could just as easily go out and pirate. It has nothing to do with people being criminals, thieves, or whatever. The main issue, simply, is the service being provided. A prime example is Russia. Russia has one of the largest piracy communities in the world, in terms of gaming. So developers just didn't localize games for the Russians, since they would "pirate them anyways."
Well, when Steam began to localize their games for Russians -- the results were staggering. Millions of Russian consumers began purchasing games instead of pirating them. Why? Because one, they finally had actual access to a legitimate product -- and secondly, the SERVICE being provided was greater than that of torrent sites. Before, those cracking games provided a better -- and most of all free service. Now, with aspects of Steam, they are willing to pay because of the improved service and convenience. To reiterate, that same exact thing happens with Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, iTunes, so on and so forth. Stop treating your consumers like criminals. Treat them like consumers.
The people who support stricter copyright laws and who are trying to shut down pirate sites are fighting to keep their old model alive. They are trying to go against nature. Instead of the consumer setting the price on the open market, they are trying to control the market in a way that allows them to dictate price.
We don't need new laws to prop up a dying business model. We need businesses that understand pricing and open markets.
|
On January 23 2012 12:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. + Show Spoiler +
Calm down bro.
First thing I did was read the indictment, it would have been the first thing everyone did (or the summary at least).
I'm pointing out that you can't justify anti-music piracy and say Pandora and Youtube is still there. Regardless of what the owners do with the site, the users are still using it in the same way and the services it provides still behave in the same way. The safe harbor laws does not mean anything when it comes to the justification of illegally downloading from youtube over megaupload or filesonic.
Also, how can you know that Pandora is not doing the same as Megaupload? You can't, unless you raid their mansion first.
You should realise that the investigators did not know most of the details that is in the indictment until they did the raid. When they did they struck gold, they got exactly what they wanted, then used the information to justify their case. Nearly all of the shit that will be used against them will be stuff like the emails, which was only discovered after the raid. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for this raid, Megaupload would have had a chance at not losing anything at all. Also just because I email someone to do something, isn't enough evidence to say that the user who received the email actually committed the action. I'm not going to jail for writing in a diary that I killed someone (at least in Australia), I might go to court though.
I haven't found much evidence in the indictment that Megaupload did not adhere to the safe harbor laws, what would have been known pre-raid.
For example: Megaupload deleted material, by blocking the URL, and not deleting the file. However how could anyone know this? As far as I'm concerned, if you block the URL you are achieving the same thing. People can't download that file. Technically they are in the wrong, but how can you know this until you raid the place first? This kind of case possibly opens the flood gates for the Music Groups with the help of Feds to just raid filesharing sites just on a hunch.
Not once did I ever say Megaupload didn't deserve what was coming to them. The court hasn't made a decision yet, Megaupload probably won't come off scott free, that is not to say that they won't, and we know that not all the accusations will hold. As the MU lawyer described, it is a civil case disguised as a criminal case. Megaupload is still innocent until proven guilty.
The safe harbor laws are there because as I pointed out earlier, nobody has the resources to control it perfectly. People can just as illegally do what they did on megaupload or filesonic, as on youtube. Safe harbor laws still hasn't stopped the armada of music companies from trying to sue ISPs, and they just keep escalating it till they get what they want, the law means shit all to them.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-copyright-case-in-high-court/story-e6frgakx-1226210317211)
Note that iiNet hasn't done anything wrong (iirc they have won many court-cases already). The overall court case possibly taking years.
You can't say to me with a straight face that you have never listened to music off a channel that wasn't affiliated with an artist, therefore you are listening to the music illegally, that is "bad for the artist". If it wasn't WMG wouldn't be blocking music on OVAs.
What I'm pointing out that there is no clear cut justification to what you have been mentioning. You can't just put this in black and white and recommend youtube and pandora, and imply that people should just get over themselves with megaupload and filesonic.
So you have no clue what Pandora is and keep using it as your poster child for "pirating" and make a total ass of yourself. Pandora has no uploading capabilities, has ads interlaced into listening to your music so they can make money and pay artists/record companies and clearly do not promote any sort of piracy. A quick google probably would've shown this to you, but whatever.
|
On January 23 2012 13:09 hasuprotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. + Show Spoiler +
Calm down bro.
First thing I did was read the indictment, it would have been the first thing everyone did (or the summary at least).
I'm pointing out that you can't justify anti-music piracy and say Pandora and Youtube is still there. Regardless of what the owners do with the site, the users are still using it in the same way and the services it provides still behave in the same way. The safe harbor laws does not mean anything when it comes to the justification of illegally downloading from youtube over megaupload or filesonic.
Also, how can you know that Pandora is not doing the same as Megaupload? You can't, unless you raid their mansion first.
You should realise that the investigators did not know most of the details that is in the indictment until they did the raid. When they did they struck gold, they got exactly what they wanted, then used the information to justify their case. Nearly all of the shit that will be used against them will be stuff like the emails, which was only discovered after the raid. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for this raid, Megaupload would have had a chance at not losing anything at all. Also just because I email someone to do something, isn't enough evidence to say that the user who received the email actually committed the action. I'm not going to jail for writing in a diary that I killed someone (at least in Australia), I might go to court though.
I haven't found much evidence in the indictment that Megaupload did not adhere to the safe harbor laws, what would have been known pre-raid.
For example: Megaupload deleted material, by blocking the URL, and not deleting the file. However how could anyone know this? As far as I'm concerned, if you block the URL you are achieving the same thing. People can't download that file. Technically they are in the wrong, but how can you know this until you raid the place first? This kind of case possibly opens the flood gates for the Music Groups with the help of Feds to just raid filesharing sites just on a hunch.
Not once did I ever say Megaupload didn't deserve what was coming to them. The court hasn't made a decision yet, Megaupload probably won't come off scott free, that is not to say that they won't, and we know that not all the accusations will hold. As the MU lawyer described, it is a civil case disguised as a criminal case. Megaupload is still innocent until proven guilty.
The safe harbor laws are there because as I pointed out earlier, nobody has the resources to control it perfectly. People can just as illegally do what they did on megaupload or filesonic, as on youtube. Safe harbor laws still hasn't stopped the armada of music companies from trying to sue ISPs, and they just keep escalating it till they get what they want, the law means shit all to them.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-copyright-case-in-high-court/story-e6frgakx-1226210317211)
Note that iiNet hasn't done anything wrong (iirc they have won many court-cases already). The overall court case possibly taking years.
You can't say to me with a straight face that you have never listened to music off a channel that wasn't affiliated with an artist, therefore you are listening to the music illegally, that is "bad for the artist". If it wasn't WMG wouldn't be blocking music on OVAs.
What I'm pointing out that there is no clear cut justification to what you have been mentioning. You can't just put this in black and white and recommend youtube and pandora, and imply that people should just get over themselves with megaupload and filesonic.
So you have no clue what Pandora is and keep using it as your poster child for "pirating" and make a total ass of yourself. Pandora has no uploading capabilities, has ads interlaced into listening to your music so they can make money and pay artists/record companies and clearly do not promote any sort of piracy. A quick google probably would've shown this to you, but whatever.
How could Pandora even be remotely attributed to piracy? They do the same shit Radio does. Buy songs, play them, give you ads, give more revenue to the artists...
|
On January 23 2012 13:09 hasuprotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. + Show Spoiler +
Calm down bro.
First thing I did was read the indictment, it would have been the first thing everyone did (or the summary at least).
I'm pointing out that you can't justify anti-music piracy and say Pandora and Youtube is still there. Regardless of what the owners do with the site, the users are still using it in the same way and the services it provides still behave in the same way. The safe harbor laws does not mean anything when it comes to the justification of illegally downloading from youtube over megaupload or filesonic.
Also, how can you know that Pandora is not doing the same as Megaupload? You can't, unless you raid their mansion first.
You should realise that the investigators did not know most of the details that is in the indictment until they did the raid. When they did they struck gold, they got exactly what they wanted, then used the information to justify their case. Nearly all of the shit that will be used against them will be stuff like the emails, which was only discovered after the raid. I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for this raid, Megaupload would have had a chance at not losing anything at all. Also just because I email someone to do something, isn't enough evidence to say that the user who received the email actually committed the action. I'm not going to jail for writing in a diary that I killed someone (at least in Australia), I might go to court though.
I haven't found much evidence in the indictment that Megaupload did not adhere to the safe harbor laws, what would have been known pre-raid.
For example: Megaupload deleted material, by blocking the URL, and not deleting the file. However how could anyone know this? As far as I'm concerned, if you block the URL you are achieving the same thing. People can't download that file. Technically they are in the wrong, but how can you know this until you raid the place first? This kind of case possibly opens the flood gates for the Music Groups with the help of Feds to just raid filesharing sites just on a hunch.
Not once did I ever say Megaupload didn't deserve what was coming to them. The court hasn't made a decision yet, Megaupload probably won't come off scott free, that is not to say that they won't, and we know that not all the accusations will hold. As the MU lawyer described, it is a civil case disguised as a criminal case. Megaupload is still innocent until proven guilty.
The safe harbor laws are there because as I pointed out earlier, nobody has the resources to control it perfectly. People can just as illegally do what they did on megaupload or filesonic, as on youtube. Safe harbor laws still hasn't stopped the armada of music companies from trying to sue ISPs, and they just keep escalating it till they get what they want, the law means shit all to them.
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-copyright-case-in-high-court/story-e6frgakx-1226210317211)
Note that iiNet hasn't done anything wrong (iirc they have won many court-cases already). The overall court case possibly taking years.
You can't say to me with a straight face that you have never listened to music off a channel that wasn't affiliated with an artist, therefore you are listening to the music illegally, that is "bad for the artist". If it wasn't WMG wouldn't be blocking music on OVAs.
What I'm pointing out that there is no clear cut justification to what you have been mentioning. You can't just put this in black and white and recommend youtube and pandora, and imply that people should just get over themselves with megaupload and filesonic.
So you have no clue what Pandora is and keep using it as your poster child for "pirating" and make a total ass of yourself. Pandora has no uploading capabilities, has ads interlaced into listening to your music so they can make money and pay artists/record companies and clearly do not promote any sort of piracy. A quick google probably would've shown this to you, but whatever.
How can I, I can't get access to it to licensing restrictions.
Dear Pandora Visitor,
We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.
We believe that you are in Australia (your IP address appears to be 203.45.89.72). If you believe we have made a mistake, we apologize and ask that you please email us.
If you have been using Pandora, we will keep a record of your existing stations and bookmarked artists and songs, so that when we are able to launch in your country, they will be waiting for you.
We will be notifying listeners as licensing agreements are established in individual countries. If you would like to be notified by email when Pandora is available in your country, please enter your email address below. The pace of global licensing is hard to predict, but we have the ultimate goal of being able to offer our service everywhere.
We share your disappointment and greatly appreciate your understanding.
Sincerely,
Tim Westergren
Founder
Enter your email address and we will let you know when Pandora is available in your country:
If you read an earlier post you would have realised I was working on an assumption. Ok sure, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. So then how can you imply Pandora as a viable alternative to Megaupload and Filesonic?
You might think Youtube is not hot on the radar, they are, but nobody wants to wage war with a global superpower. I've never used Pandora, so I can't say, but if you can stream illegally uploaded music on it, it should be up there with the rest.
Regardless, the point I'm making has nothing to do with these technicalities. Its to do with the justification of piracy on certain sites over others, which some people think is as clear as day, which its not.
|
Just showing that jibba is right to be irate about people talking out of their ass on this subject.
|
On January 23 2012 13:07 Iranon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:25 dmnum wrote:
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore. Agree. This topic isn't really the place to discuss piracy in general, but I think it's obvious to all involved that it's not something that's going to go away, regardless of how many times it is forced to find new avenues of distribution. I would happily use a revamped iTunes with a shareware sort of business model -- download an album and keep it free of charge for a week, after which time your account is unable to play those songs unless you buy them for, say, 10 cents each instead whatever they are now. If you gave me that and cloud storage in the same program, I would never think of pirating an album again. Similarly, from time to time I'll download a single-player game (I don't play multiplayer games with the exception of SC2, and even that I don't really play; I haven't been online since Season 2). I'll play it for a few hours, and if it's not really fun, it immediately gets uninstalled and the ISO gets deleted. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. Otherwise, after I've played through the whole game once, or at least most of it, I decide whether or not it's something I'd like to actually own and play again in the future. If so, it gets purchased on Steam the next time it goes on sale, and the ISO gets deleted. I think that's pretty common behavior. Anyone who says piracy isn't about the price of things is full of shit. People don't download copyrighted material because they're upset about DRM, or because they find it inconvenient to get it from legal vendors, it's because when presented with the option of obtaining any and all of the media you could ever want for zero dollars with zero consequences by tapping a few keys and waiting an hour, it's pretty hard to say no. More on topic: yeah, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this is sort of news in the near future, but I highly doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference.
Lol people like you are just ignorant to all hell. Legal means are inconvenient.
Private trackers such as what are far superior to Itunes or whatever shit online store example you can come up with.
Some content is never released outside a specific country so there is no easy way to go about purchasing such content, especially if you don't live in a major city. And even if I could use a proxy service to get it, what good are DVDs if there are no subtitles?
|
On January 23 2012 13:26 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 13:07 Iranon wrote:On January 23 2012 12:25 dmnum wrote:
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore. Agree. This topic isn't really the place to discuss piracy in general, but I think it's obvious to all involved that it's not something that's going to go away, regardless of how many times it is forced to find new avenues of distribution. I would happily use a revamped iTunes with a shareware sort of business model -- download an album and keep it free of charge for a week, after which time your account is unable to play those songs unless you buy them for, say, 10 cents each instead whatever they are now. If you gave me that and cloud storage in the same program, I would never think of pirating an album again. Similarly, from time to time I'll download a single-player game (I don't play multiplayer games with the exception of SC2, and even that I don't really play; I haven't been online since Season 2). I'll play it for a few hours, and if it's not really fun, it immediately gets uninstalled and the ISO gets deleted. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. Otherwise, after I've played through the whole game once, or at least most of it, I decide whether or not it's something I'd like to actually own and play again in the future. If so, it gets purchased on Steam the next time it goes on sale, and the ISO gets deleted. I think that's pretty common behavior. Anyone who says piracy isn't about the price of things is full of shit. People don't download copyrighted material because they're upset about DRM, or because they find it inconvenient to get it from legal vendors, it's because when presented with the option of obtaining any and all of the media you could ever want for zero dollars with zero consequences by tapping a few keys and waiting an hour, it's pretty hard to say no. More on topic: yeah, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this is sort of news in the near future, but I highly doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference. Lol people like you are just ignorant to all hell. Legal means are inconvenient. Private trackers such as what are far superior to Itunes or whatever shit online store example you can come up with. Some content is never released outside a specific country so there is no easy way to go about purchasing such content, especially if you don't live in a major city. And even if I could use a proxy service to get it, what good are DVDs if there are no subtitles?
Oh NO! It's inconvenient! Boo fucking hoo!
This stuff is not food or water or air or shelter. They are not necessities. You don't have a right to these things.
And you call him ignorant?
|
On January 23 2012 13:26 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 13:07 Iranon wrote:On January 23 2012 12:25 dmnum wrote:
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore. Agree. This topic isn't really the place to discuss piracy in general, but I think it's obvious to all involved that it's not something that's going to go away, regardless of how many times it is forced to find new avenues of distribution. I would happily use a revamped iTunes with a shareware sort of business model -- download an album and keep it free of charge for a week, after which time your account is unable to play those songs unless you buy them for, say, 10 cents each instead whatever they are now. If you gave me that and cloud storage in the same program, I would never think of pirating an album again. Similarly, from time to time I'll download a single-player game (I don't play multiplayer games with the exception of SC2, and even that I don't really play; I haven't been online since Season 2). I'll play it for a few hours, and if it's not really fun, it immediately gets uninstalled and the ISO gets deleted. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. Otherwise, after I've played through the whole game once, or at least most of it, I decide whether or not it's something I'd like to actually own and play again in the future. If so, it gets purchased on Steam the next time it goes on sale, and the ISO gets deleted. I think that's pretty common behavior. Anyone who says piracy isn't about the price of things is full of shit. People don't download copyrighted material because they're upset about DRM, or because they find it inconvenient to get it from legal vendors, it's because when presented with the option of obtaining any and all of the media you could ever want for zero dollars with zero consequences by tapping a few keys and waiting an hour, it's pretty hard to say no. More on topic: yeah, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this is sort of news in the near future, but I highly doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference. Private trackers such as what are far superior to Itunes or whatever shit online store example you can come up with. Private trackers are more convenient than steam?
|
On January 23 2012 13:32 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 13:26 skyR wrote:On January 23 2012 13:07 Iranon wrote:On January 23 2012 12:25 dmnum wrote:
I don't think shutting down these sites will stop piracy. It will make it a little bit harder but P2P is still there, and even if it goes down there's a ton of other methods to download stuff.
I feel like a good way to prevent piracy(not eliminate it, because frankly that will never happen) is launching some service like steam, except for musics/movies(Not iTunes, iTunes is good but it's still "expensive"). I used to get pirated games a lot, now with steam/origin/GOG/etc there's so many good sales that I don't feel the need to download pirated games anymore. Agree. This topic isn't really the place to discuss piracy in general, but I think it's obvious to all involved that it's not something that's going to go away, regardless of how many times it is forced to find new avenues of distribution. I would happily use a revamped iTunes with a shareware sort of business model -- download an album and keep it free of charge for a week, after which time your account is unable to play those songs unless you buy them for, say, 10 cents each instead whatever they are now. If you gave me that and cloud storage in the same program, I would never think of pirating an album again. Similarly, from time to time I'll download a single-player game (I don't play multiplayer games with the exception of SC2, and even that I don't really play; I haven't been online since Season 2). I'll play it for a few hours, and if it's not really fun, it immediately gets uninstalled and the ISO gets deleted. This is what happens the vast majority of the time. Otherwise, after I've played through the whole game once, or at least most of it, I decide whether or not it's something I'd like to actually own and play again in the future. If so, it gets purchased on Steam the next time it goes on sale, and the ISO gets deleted. I think that's pretty common behavior. Anyone who says piracy isn't about the price of things is full of shit. People don't download copyrighted material because they're upset about DRM, or because they find it inconvenient to get it from legal vendors, it's because when presented with the option of obtaining any and all of the media you could ever want for zero dollars with zero consequences by tapping a few keys and waiting an hour, it's pretty hard to say no. More on topic: yeah, we'll probably be seeing a lot more of this is sort of news in the near future, but I highly doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference. Lol people like you are just ignorant to all hell. Legal means are inconvenient. Private trackers such as what are far superior to Itunes or whatever shit online store example you can come up with. Some content is never released outside a specific country so there is no easy way to go about purchasing such content, especially if you don't live in a major city. And even if I could use a proxy service to get it, what good are DVDs if there are no subtitles? Oh NO! It's inconvenient! Boo fucking hoo! This stuff is not food or water or air or shelter. They are not necessities. You don't have a right to these things. And you call him ignorant?
The argument doesn't even make up most of what is being pirated, music and video games can be pretty much obtained if you can read the foreign language that you want to get stuff from. TV shows and movies are a bit different as unless you find an importer you'd have to rely on 1 2 year delay, if at all. That being said it doesn't account for most of what is being pirated, the blockbuster titles for movies and games that are being pirated which are easily available in the vast majoirty of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
