If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Obvious Facebook goes all SOPA-y on TPB, decides to block any torrent link as "Unsafe"   (ravingtechguy.blogspot.com) divider line 49
More: Obvious, Pirate Bay, Facebook, error messages  
•       •       •

3525 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jan 2012 at 10:03 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
cretinbob [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 07:45:10 AM
Because torrents are only used for illegal things, duh....
 
cman [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 07:57:29 AM
TBH, I would never go on TBP on a Windows system. Their advertisements give me the worries of spyware.
 
cmunic8r99 [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 07:58:03 AM
Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB
 
St_Francis_P [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 08:21:35 AM
What happened Facebook, you used to be cool.

Wait, no it didn't.
 
BurnShrike
2012-01-02 08:24:18 AM
cman: TBH, I would never go on TBP on a Windows system. Their advertisements give me the worries of spyware.

Firefox with AdBlock + NoScript + FlashBlock

I never see ads.
 
urban.derelict
2012-01-02 08:39:51 AM
lol retards posting torrent links on FB deserve to be rounded up and shot.

/some people should die
//that's just unconscious knowledge
 
fluffy2097
2012-01-02 10:13:12 AM
BurnShrike: cman: TBH, I would never go on TBP on a Windows system. Their advertisements give me the worries of spyware.

Firefox with AdBlock + NoScript + FlashBlock

I never see ads.

You might want ghostery too.
 
fluffy2097
2012-01-02 10:14:56 AM
urban.derelict: lol retards posting torrent links on FB deserve to be rounded up and shot.

/some people should die
//that's just unconscious knowledge

So should the people of Philadelphia.
/Tards. The lot of them.
//I know because I wwebsite as on the internet.
 
apoptotic
2012-01-02 10:22:02 AM
FTA: "Are our private conversations really that private if big brother is watching over our shoulder ensuring we're not sending links to sites they deem inappropriate?"
No matter what your settings say, Facebook isn't private. Users aren't the customer, they're the product.
 
LDM90
2012-01-02 10:22:05 AM
I've never seen a torrent link on facebook.
I can't imagine going to facebook in order to find torrent links.
95% of the people on my friends list have probably never heard of a torrent.

Oh noes!
 
Klivian
2012-01-02 10:26:18 AM
Having a link to a torrent on facebook just seems like a stupid idea, it's begging the RIAA or other organizations to sue you.
 
nitefallz
2012-01-02 10:30:47 AM
If only they could get the GoDaddy treatment. (facebook)
 
Linger [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 10:36:17 AM
TFA seems to indicate that it's blocking torrent links in some kind of Facebook chat client and just not the user page/walls.

That would seem to indicate that they are monitoring private user to user chats in some manner.

That seems an even more farked up privacy breach than usual, even for them.
 
Nefarious [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 10:39:52 AM
Linger: TFA seems to indicate that it's blocking torrent links in some kind of Facebook chat client and just not the user page/walls.

That would seem to indicate that they are monitoring private user to user chats in some manner.

That seems an even more farked up privacy breach than usual, even for them.

They could just be filtering the extension. Who am I kidding they probably are monitoring us.
 
veale728
2012-01-02 10:44:33 AM
Linger: TFA seems to indicate that it's blocking torrent links in some kind of Facebook chat client and just not the user page/walls.

That would seem to indicate that they are monitoring private user to user chats in some manner.

That seems an even more farked up privacy breach than usual, even for them.

Because its impossible to filter certain keywords. -_-
 
italie
2012-01-02 10:45:11 AM
nitefallz: If only they could get the GoDaddy treatment. (facebook)

A failed wedgie attempt?
 
envirovore
2012-01-02 10:46:09 AM
fluffy2097: BurnShrike: cman: TBH, I would never go on TBP on a Windows system. Their advertisements give me the worries of spyware.

Firefox with AdBlock + NoScript + FlashBlock

I never see ads.

You might want ghostery too.

It was someone here that turned me on to Ghostery not all that long ago. Very handy extension.
/FF + ABP + NoScript + Ghostery
//never has any problems on TPB
 
Ed Finnerty [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 10:49:07 AM
What type of idiot posts a torrent link on Facebook?
 
Man On Fire
2012-01-02 11:05:51 AM
Ed Finnerty: What type of idiot posts a torrent link on Facebook?
 
Honest Bender
2012-01-02 11:07:35 AM
WTF does this have to do with SOPA?
 
envirovore
2012-01-02 11:11:45 AM
Facebook has also been filtering/deleting the URL and groups for isanyoneup.com (VNSFW so no linky).
/wonders why.
 
Kar98
2012-01-02 11:13:08 AM
There is very little overlap between people womdomthe Facebook and people who know what a torrent is, I think.
 
maxheck
2012-01-02 11:39:21 AM
Ric Romero says:

Meh. If you're depending on FB to determine what is safe or not, you've already abdicated a lot of responsibility. (common sense as well, but...)

Torrent links *are* unsafe unless you know who's providing it. I use BT all the time to transfer large data sets and the like, but if you're clicking on a link from someone you don't know, you're at least running the risk of going pirate.
 
Rockstone
2012-01-02 12:14:03 PM
I tested it, it worked fine for me, eh.
 
thurstonxhowell
2012-01-02 12:21:22 PM
Honest Bender: WTF does this have to do with SOPA?

Stupid McIdiot posts Slutty_Titbangers.torrent to Facebook. Slutty Titbangers is copyrighted work. Copyright holders use SOPA to have Facebook shutdown. Facebook does not like being shutdown. Facebook prevents posting of any torrent files.
 
BurnShrike
2012-01-02 01:42:07 PM
envirovore: fluffy2097: You might want ghostery too.

It was someone here that turned me on to Ghostery not all that long ago. Very handy extension.
/FF + ABP + NoScript + Ghostery
//never has any problems on TPB

I just looked it up. Seems neat. Thanks for pointing me towards it.
 
Hector Remarkable
2012-01-02 01:53:33 PM
I just posted a link to this on Facebook. I hope they don't care.
 
Fark_Guy_Rob
2012-01-02 02:01:58 PM
I remember back when Google+ came out and people were all like, 'Hey - look - this could be cool; it's like Facebook but different and healthy competition would keep the both more honest and less evil'.....

And other people were like, 'OMG IT IS NOT FACEBOOK I LOOOOOOVEEEE FFAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKK! BRB PLAYING MAFIA WARS ON FACEBOOK!'

Just sayin....
 
Bacontastesgood
2012-01-02 02:34:41 PM
Occasionally when my company is doing an install, we have to be there at the given uni working with some grad students. Our software is OK but spartan, and I recommend stuff like Origin for plotting, ChemDraw, MatLab, etc. Usually their advisors will just buy it if they don't have it already, and even if the advisor is too cheap there is a site license discount program for students, where they have to pay maybe $50 for normally $1000 pieces of software.

Punchline: 90%+ of the time, they go "ill just torrent it. I got Office that way". I point out by looking at their webstore that they could have gotten Office for FREE, legally, and that anything they torrent may have spyware, viruses, malware etc. I can tell from the looks they give me that they either don't believe me or don't care. A few ask me "what's malware?" These people aren't poor, by the way, they have smartphones and decent cars and go to concerts and stuff. They aren't dumb, either, they know their work very well. They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.
 
Honest Bender
2012-01-02 02:41:28 PM
thurstonxhowell: Honest Bender: WTF does this have to do with SOPA?

Stupid McIdiot posts Slutty_Titbangers.torrent to Facebook. Slutty Titbangers is copyrighted work. Copyright holders use SOPA to have Facebook shutdown. Facebook does not like being shutdown. Facebook prevents posting of any torrent files.

Seems like kind of a stretch. But I guess I get what you're saying.
 
apeiron242
2012-01-02 02:45:21 PM
SOPA is bad news folks.

cmunic8r99: Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB

This is a stupid thing to say. If you don't like the wall paper in your house you don't move out, you change the farking wall paper you dumb fark.

Bacontastesgood: They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.

And they are right. It's economics 101, day one.

Price is determined by supply and demand. Think of it as Demand/Supply = Price.

If it can be digitized, it can be reproduced perfectly, infinitely and be sent far and fast at a cost that is too low to measure. Therefore we can say that the supply of the commodity in question is infinite.

The demand for any digital something is finite. Only so many people on the planet have a greater than 0.00 interest.

Any finite demand divided by infinite supply gives us a price as close to zero as makes no odds. Digitized materials are literally WORTHLESS.

The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.
 
ronin7
2012-01-02 02:56:29 PM
Klivian: Having a link to a torrent on facebook just seems like a stupid idea, it's begging the RIAA or other organizations to sue you.

Until you try to PM your friend a torrent link and find out you cant even do that.
 
cmunic8r99 [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 02:57:05 PM
apeiron242: SOPA is bad news folks.

cmunic8r99: Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB

This is a stupid thing to say. If you don't like the wall paper in your house you don't move out, you change the farking wall paper you dumb fark.

I'm a dumb fark because you agree with me? If you don't like the wall paper, you replace it with some other kind of wall paper, or you pull it off and paint the walls. Either way, you've decided not to use the wall paper you don't like.
 
Ed Finnerty [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 03:08:13 PM
Honest Bender: thurstonxhowell: Honest Bender: WTF does this have to do with SOPA?

Stupid McIdiot posts Slutty_Titbangers.torrent to Facebook. Slutty Titbangers is copyrighted work. Copyright holders use SOPA to have Facebook shutdown. Facebook does not like being shutdown. Facebook prevents posting of any torrent files.

Seems like kind of a stretch.

That was Slutty_Titbangers_2.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2012-01-02 03:18:02 PM
apeiron242: SOPA is bad news folks.

cmunic8r99: Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB

This is a stupid thing to say. If you don't like the wall paper in your house you don't move out, you change the farking wall paper you dumb fark.

Bacontastesgood: They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.

And they are right. It's economics 101, day one.

Price is determined by supply and demand. Think of it as Demand/Supply = Price.

If it can be digitized, it can be reproduced perfectly, infinitely and be sent far and fast at a cost that is too low to measure. Therefore we can say that the supply of the commodity in question is infinite.

The demand for any digital something is finite. Only so many people on the planet have a greater than 0.00 interest.

Any finite demand divided by infinite supply gives us a price as close to zero as makes no odds. Digitized materials are literally WORTHLESS.

The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

The concept of infinite supply does rather throw capitalism for a loop. We need a new Adam Smith (or Karl Marx, for that matter).
 
Fark_Guy_Rob
2012-01-02 03:44:37 PM
Tyrone Slothrop: apeiron242: SOPA is bad news folks.

cmunic8r99: Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB

This is a stupid thing to say. If you don't like the wall paper in your house you don't move out, you change the farking wall paper you dumb fark.

Bacontastesgood: They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.

And they are right. It's economics 101, day one.

Price is determined by supply and demand. Think of it as Demand/Supply = Price.

If it can be digitized, it can be reproduced perfectly, infinitely and be sent far and fast at a cost that is too low to measure. Therefore we can say that the supply of the commodity in question is infinite.

The demand for any digital something is finite. Only so many people on the planet have a greater than 0.00 interest.

Any finite demand divided by infinite supply gives us a price as close to zero as makes no odds. Digitized materials are literally WORTHLESS.

The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

The concept of infinite supply does rather throw capitalism for a loop. We need a new Adam Smith (or Karl Marx, for that matter).

It's still not the Star-Trek Utopia people pretend it is. The infinite supply doesn't exist in the beginning; it has to be created. It has to be created from a finite amount of resources.

It still takes time and money (and arguably talent, skill, experience) to do something like create a modern box-office movie. We're talking MILLIONS of dollars and probably nearly as many hours. Those people, the content creators can't live life off the fruits of other media creators. They still need physical things, like food, and housing. Those things are still not infinite.

Nobody disagrees that copying a file creates a duplicate and can be copied (for all intents and purposes) an infinite number of times. If you *want* to create a movie, song, video game, comic book - and *give* it away and allow people to copy it - again - nobody has a problem with that. But the people who create content and also want to afford some of the non-infinite resources we all want are concerned about their ability to do so. Because if 0% of infinite downloaders paying you $0 for their download works out to you earning $0 for your content.
 
Fubini
2012-01-02 04:00:46 PM
Bacontastesgood: Occasionally when my company is doing an install, we have to be there at the given uni working with some grad students. Our software is OK but spartan, and I recommend stuff like Origin for plotting, ChemDraw, MatLab, etc. Usually their advisors will just buy it if they don't have it already, and even if the advisor is too cheap there is a site license discount program for students, where they have to pay maybe $50 for normally $1000 pieces of software.

Punchline: 90%+ of the time, they go "ill just torrent it. I got Office that way". I point out by looking at their webstore that they could have gotten Office for FREE, legally, and that anything they torrent may have spyware, viruses, malware etc. I can tell from the looks they give me that they either don't believe me or don't care. A few ask me "what's malware?" These people aren't poor, by the way, they have smartphones and decent cars and go to concerts and stuff. They aren't dumb, either, they know their work very well. They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.

It sounds like you work around a lot of engineers. I've met a lot of engineers who really just want a system to work and don't care about anything past that. Some of the engineering grad students I've met will literally spend years constructing a single experiment and then running it once, and on the basis of that one experiment they get their Masters or PhD.

Part of the problem is that some engineering projects cost a ton of money, and part of the problem is the one-shot thing above. It's not worth it to buy $5000 in software for one experiment when you can get the same stuff for free with a minimum of risk. If you're a grad student on a limited budget then that $5000 could easily be a whole new hardware setup.
 
HamSlammer
2012-01-02 04:03:29 PM
It's nice to know that other people decide what I can and cannot do. I simply shouldn't be trusted to make any decisions for myself anymore.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2012-01-02 07:08:37 PM
Fark_Guy_Rob: Tyrone Slothrop: apeiron242: SOPA is bad news folks.

cmunic8r99: Your blog sucks.

/don't like it, don't use FB

This is a stupid thing to say. If you don't like the wall paper in your house you don't move out, you change the farking wall paper you dumb fark.

Bacontastesgood: They just grew up thinking that paying for software is dumb.

And they are right. It's economics 101, day one.

Price is determined by supply and demand. Think of it as Demand/Supply = Price.

If it can be digitized, it can be reproduced perfectly, infinitely and be sent far and fast at a cost that is too low to measure. Therefore we can say that the supply of the commodity in question is infinite.

The demand for any digital something is finite. Only so many people on the planet have a greater than 0.00 interest.

Any finite demand divided by infinite supply gives us a price as close to zero as makes no odds. Digitized materials are literally WORTHLESS.

The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

The concept of infinite supply does rather throw capitalism for a loop. We need a new Adam Smith (or Karl Marx, for that matter).

It's still not the Star-Trek Utopia people pretend it is. The infinite supply doesn't exist in the beginning; it has to be created. It has to be created from a finite amount of resources.

It still takes time and money (and arguably talent, skill, experience) to do something like create a modern box-office movie. We're talking MILLIONS of dollars and probably nearly as many hours. Those people, the content creators can't live life off the fruits of other media creators. They still need physical things, like food, and housing. Those things are still not infinite.

Nobody disagrees that copying a file creates a duplicate and can be copied (for all intents and purposes) an infinite number of times. If you *want* to create a movie, song, video game, comic book - and *gi ...

Of course. But since we're operating under the laws of capitalism, which doesn't take into account the idea of infinite supply (and no matter what the original cost, even if millions, infinite supply leads to 0 value), the only solution being proposed is to limit the supply. Now that may be a nice idea for the suppliers, but it doesn't work in practice. IMO, another solution needs to be found that allows for genuine infinite supply and still have the creators adequately compensated. Don't ask me what that is, though.
 
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier [TotalFark]
2012-01-02 08:11:19 PM
Tyrone Slothrop:

Variable-demand based valuation. Allow the work to be distributed on the net with the criteria that legitimate users set their value (within some reasonable guidelines). The incentive to own a legitimate copy can be as simple as guaranteed customer service for legitimate owners or it can be far more draconian (which is an issue for marketing and legal departments to work out). Exclusive content or some non-tangible point of pride can be monetized (such as Minecraft offering free upgrades to anyone who has been around since the Alpha days) until the product grows on its own. After that, a gradual phaseout and release into public domain once certain revenue criterion are met.

Content producers are forced to keep innovating, demand-price valuations provide new economic research frontiers, and an informed populace is capable of weighing their own purchasing decisions without the constraint of limited supply (as in traditional purchasing models). Of course, that requires a corporate shift from short-term gains to long-term brand stability and continuous refinement (both very expensive things to do). I suppose that while I'm dreaming, I'd like a unicorn as well.
 
Twigz221
2012-01-02 10:19:34 PM
Tyrone Slothrop:
Of course. But since we're operating under the laws of capitalism, which doesn't take into account the idea of infinite supply (and no matter what the original cost, even if millions, infinite supply leads to 0 value), the only solution being proposed is to limit the supply. Now that may be a nice idea for the suppliers, but it doesn't work in practice. IMO, another solution needs to be found that allows for genuine infinite supply and still have the creators adequately compensated. Don't ask me what that is, though..

Low prices and convenience. That's how many games on Steam make a lot of money. With the internet we can get files (video, music, game) to massive numbers of people. If you make it a good product that's convenient and hassle free, people will pay for it. Some will still pirate it, but if you do a good enough job, you'll get more than enough paying customers to be profitable.
 
narkor
2012-01-02 10:33:55 PM
apeiron242:
The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

There is no business model. It's a chimera. There is no reliable way to make money off stuff that people can get for free. It's like the internet version of the perpetual motion machine.
 
SquishyLizard
2012-01-02 11:39:49 PM
narkor: apeiron242:
The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

There is no business model. It's a chimera. There is no reliable way to make money off stuff that people can get for free. It's like the internet version of the perpetual motion machine.

Wrong. The model already exists. It has existed for hundreds of years. It's called commissioning. Link (new window)

As mentioned earlier it's nearly impossible to extract value from something once that something has been placed on the internet. Why not embrace that instead of paying the artist for their previous work, pay them for their next work instead? The artists are never cheated by people downloading after the fact because the artist has already been paid for their work.

Throw in some public grants to kickstart artists (not many people would commission an unknown) and you've set up a pretty healthy system, the kind that artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Mozart flourished under.
 
Kittypie070
2012-01-03 03:24:13 AM
I was gonna say something but SquishyLizard kicked my ass with his awesome.
 
dready zim
2012-01-03 07:06:13 AM
Kar98: people womdomthe Facebook

Can anyone make sense of this for me please?

SquishyLizard: narkor: apeiron242:
The sooner content creators understand this the sooner they can stop suing six year old girls and start updating their business models.

There is no business model. It's a chimera. There is no reliable way to make money off stuff that people can get for free. It's like the internet version of the perpetual motion machine.

Wrong. The model already exists. It has existed for hundreds of years. It's called commissioning. Link (new window)

As mentioned earlier it's nearly impossible to extract value from something once that something has been placed on the internet. Why not embrace that instead of paying the artist for their previous work, pay them for their next work instead? The artists are never cheated by people downloading after the fact because the artist has already been paid for their work.

Throw in some public grants to kickstart artists (not many people would commission an unknown) and you've set up a pretty healthy system, the kind that artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Mozart flourished under.

This would work. It would also stop the endless copyright extensions for artists like elvis etc. Get paid once then your work is in public domain... No RIAA etc, increased creative options etc.
 
t3knomanser
2012-01-03 08:25:51 AM
narkor: There is no reliable way to make money off stuff that people can get for free.

Which is why broadcast television was such a miserable failure, right?
 
Kinek
2012-01-03 12:17:43 PM
t3knomanser: narkor: There is no reliable way to make money off stuff that people can get for free.

Which is why broadcast television was such a miserable failure, right?

I think his point was that there is no model that you can guarantee you a profit. Business is not a magical machine where you put money in and get more money out all the time. Which is what the entertainment industry would like to believe.
 
exactly three days
2012-01-03 07:35:42 PM
So the adjective form of SOPA is SOPAY... but pronounced "soapy".

/such details = important
 
jonsjava
2012-01-03 11:03:49 PM
exactly three days: So the adjective form of SOPA is SOPAY... but pronounced "soapy".

/such details = important

What about "SOPAY", pronounced "SO PAY!"
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
 


Link here