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.

(Digital Trends)   RIAA says major ISPs set to turn into copyright police by July, throttling bandwidth and cutting off internet access to customers who are suspected of downloading copyrighted content illegally   (digitaltrends.com) divider line 254
    More: Scary, ISPs, RIAA, environmental mitigation, automated system  
•       •       •

5788 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Mar 2012 at 4:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-16 01:30:35 PM

a9735z: Look at Steam. Ignoring companies that install secondary and tertiary DRM bullshiat (looking at you Rockstar), companies that simply sell through Steam without extra DRM bullshiat with good pricing do incredibly well (assuming a quality product with demand). Valve has even shown their raw data on how pricing affects sales and total revenue.


And what do you think the odds are of steam traffic being flagged as downloading illegal content when you download a game?
 
2012-03-16 01:30:42 PM
Here's the thing. The only thing that will change with me not being able to download CDs? I won't listen to new unheard of bands anymore. The only bands I'll be listening to will be from my collection or over the radio or it's free internet equivalent. If I truly enjoy the band I'll find other ways of getting their CDs, thift stores, bargain bins, ebay, craig's list, ect. I'm not going to pay the ridiculous prices on CDs anymore, I haven't for years and I will not start, period.

My new movies? As much movies as I download, I still manage to go out to the cinema as much as I can afford to watch on the big screen, alot of times movies I've already downloaded cams to make sure they weren't complete crap. But screw that, if they're going to bring the war to my door step its time to take up a new hobby, no more theaters. I have to drive to another freaking town to get to one anyways, so more gas savings for me.

Are they assuming I'm going to start buying their 20+ dollar new release dvds all of a sudden now that I won't be able to snatch from the internet? No, that's not going to happen. I'm going to continue to either wait until they find their way into the bargain bin or I'm going to rent them for a dollar at my local DVD rental machine.

These people believe they're entitled to my money, and now that they've gone out of their way to make it harder for me to get their products, They believe I will all of a sudden start buying their products at full price. No. That's not going to happen. The vast majority of my money was never going to go to you people in the first place, all you've done is make sure that the bands will not be heard, the movies will not be viewed.

People's hard work will not be appreciated. The money I do spend on your products has evaporated, not increased.
 
2012-03-16 01:49:23 PM
they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.
 
2012-03-16 01:51:42 PM

Thrakkerzog:
And what do you think the odds are of steam traffic being flagged as downloading illegal content when you download a game?


It honestly depends on the metrics used. A sudden and sustained spike in internet activity (brought a new machine, told Steam to go for it) may well be enough to get you red flagged.

We're not talking about companies doing something the correct or proper way because they want to and it'll please their customers and thus they'll part with more money, we're talking about companies being mandated to do 'something', so it'll be as cheap and nasty a solution as possible sufficient to comply with the directive and no more.

Or they could just go with any Peer 2 Peer activity... pity that Sky's (the UK satellite broadcaster) on-demand service uses P2P... so does WoW for its big patches (and several MMO's are looking at similar systems). I think the downloader for the BBC's iPlayer also uses P2P but not too sure on that one.

Remember: Cheapest way possible that has the minimum amount of expenditure.
 
Oak
2012-03-16 01:51:43 PM
What technology giveth, technology can taketh away. The recording industry is going to go the way of the horse-breeding industry. Of course we've got a government that has tools for keeping rich people rich that didn't exist 100 years ago, but the forces of economics will eventually win out. People are going to need all that money they've been pouring into the pockets of the moguls and the top artists for food and utilities anyway, so it's yet another win for efficiency.
 
2012-03-16 01:52:40 PM

falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.


No.
 
2012-03-16 01:53:58 PM
If this was just the RIAA I wouldn't care so much. I rarely like any new band. The bands I know I like I'll buy their albums, no problem, no download necessary. Everything else I can listen to on Youtube, and if I like it enough to want to listen to again, I'll just use a Firefox extension to rip the audio - problem solved.

Either way, I hope the RIAA loses this fight sooner rather than later. The sooner they have a grave to shiat on, the better.
 
2012-03-16 01:55:10 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.


then have your internet throttled
 
2012-03-16 01:56:23 PM
will i still be able to activate any version of windows 7 with Daz loader
 
2012-03-16 02:00:18 PM

falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled


No.
 
kab
2012-03-16 02:04:27 PM

Oak: What technology giveth, technology can taketh away. The recording industry is going to go the way of the horse-breeding industry. Of course we've got a government that has tools for keeping rich people rich that didn't exist 100 years ago, but the forces of economics will eventually win out. People are going to need all that money they've been pouring into the pockets of the moguls and the top artists for food and utilities anyway, so it's yet another win for efficiency.


The 'industry' as you perceive it might change, but it isn't going anywhere as long as folks want to hear music. And for those who don't want to go out of their own way to look for it themselves (and there are a LOT of these people in existence), there will be an industry catering to them.
 
2012-03-16 02:09:43 PM

kab:
The 'industry' as you perceive it might change, but it isn't going anywhere as long as folks want to hear music.


I don't think anybody is really saying they don't want a "music industry" per say nor does anybody believe the starving artist line either. What people want to see, specifically in this case, is the entity called the Recording Industry Association of America die, quite horribly, in a fire.

That in and of itself will not kill the "music industry" it will however kill off a bunch of middle men who have been taking considerable amounts of money from the artists and providing very little service beyond annoying said artists customers.
 
2012-03-16 02:09:56 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled

No.


Yes.
 
2012-03-16 02:10:51 PM

falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled

No.

Yes.


No. I'm not American. I win.
 
2012-03-16 02:11:39 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled

No.

Yes.

No. I'm not American. I win.


No.
 
2012-03-16 02:11:40 PM

imgod2u: Mike_LowELL: I like how people think that the RIAA is some soulless corporation that tries to profit at any cost necessary. They are a business. It is their job to profit at any cost necessary.

I hear this bs a lot. No, it isn't. Businesses, as with people aren't just supposed to be sociopathic nutjobs no matter what the "but it works better in the long run" Randian idiotic keep chanting.

Like anything, capitalism works well in many cases but it's not some infallible code of conduct that will always result in good things. And businesses, like people should weigh the pros and cons of the "it's just business" mentality based on the situation at hand.


Corporations are legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders.

If a corp made an anonymous donation to a charity, they could easily be sued for that. A publicized donation however could be argued as improving the image of the corp.

It's not like that.because of an evil nutjob trying to run an evil business, but to keep an evil asshole from embezzling the assets of a business.
 
2012-03-16 02:13:05 PM

falcon176:
No.


Check my IP biatch, not originating from the Americas. So.. Yes.
 
2012-03-16 02:13:46 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176:
No.

Check my IP biatch, not originating from the Americas. So.. Yes.


No.
 
2012-03-16 02:15:22 PM

falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176:
No.

Check my IP biatch, not originating from the Americas. So.. Yes.

No.


Cry moar and enjoy your theocracy Mr. I live in Houston. Stears & Queers boy, you ain't got horns.
 
2012-03-16 02:15:46 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176:
No.

Check my IP biatch, not originating from the Americas. So.. Yes.

No.

Cry moar and enjoy your theocracy Mr. I live in Houston. Stears & Queers boy, you ain't got horns.


No.
 
2012-03-16 02:19:03 PM

kim jong-un:
Corporations are legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders.


True, to a degree, however one could argue that playing a long game would be equally in the best interests of the shareholders by virtue of the company providing predictable and stable dividends. I think the exact wording of these pieces of legislation should be investigated as there is far too much commitment to short term profits and the expense of corporate longevity for it simply be "best interests of shareholders".
 
2012-03-16 02:19:25 PM

Vaneshi: BumpInTheNight: and yah, the sense of entitlement among pirates is stifling "you can't stop me from watching your bad shows, shiatty movies and terrible bands, nya nya!".

The problem is we lump everyone together rightly or wrongly. There is an ever growing number of people turning to copyright infringement (in part or in whole) for their entertainment because whilst the industry is providing them with content they want (otherwise why bother ripping it off) except there is no mechanism to get it in a desired format at a desired time in exchange for money.

I'm not ignoring the fact that there are just some people who will never pay nor am I ignoring the digital kelptomaniacs who must have a copy of everything... but they really are the minority. But just because a movie sucked doesn't mean someone didn't enjoy it somewhere and it should be available for purchase digitally.


An extreme example is 'Song of the South' Disney actually refuses to sell it. I really think that artificially withholding from sale a work for reasons other than an initial debut date should result in that work immediately entering the public domain.

The artificial scarcity of copyright was meant to mean that the scarcity came from only having an official source for first sale. It should never have been used to introduce true scarcity.
 
2012-03-16 02:20:37 PM

falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176:
No.

Check my IP biatch, not originating from the Americas. So.. Yes.

No.

Cry moar and enjoy your theocracy Mr. I live in Houston. Stears & Queers boy, you ain't got horns.

No.


Yes.
 
2012-03-16 02:25:34 PM

falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled


Darn. I will have to download off my neighbhors unsecured linksys router. YOU SURE SHOWED ME RIAA.
 
2012-03-16 02:29:43 PM

Yaxe: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled

Darn. I will have to download off my neighbhors unsecured linksys router. YOU SURE SHOWED ME RIAA.


no qualms with stealing bandwidth? RIAA is right to label you all as thieves apparently.
 
2012-03-16 02:39:57 PM

Yaxe: falcon176: Vaneshi: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

No.

then have your internet throttled

Darn. I will have to download off my neighbhors unsecured linksys router. YOU SURE SHOWED ME RIAA.


Not sure about San Diego but if you tried that here and the neighbor's complaints caused you to be caught...there's a nice indictable offense earning you up to 10 years. Nice. I know the chances of things snowballing like that are pretty slim as it stands now but if that's the common reaction of such a notice then me thinks the result would become a little more common too.

Since its virtually impossible to completely lock down a wireless router already...this is uncool turf for sure.
 
2012-03-16 02:41:15 PM

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: seedbox


From what I've read, the various MAFIAA organizations will be policing torrents, gathering IP address, that kind of thing. Same old stupid shiat.

A seedbox will solve that problem for you.
 
2012-03-16 02:49:40 PM

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: I wonder if finally getting a seedbox will be a good idea because of this or would comcast throttle me because I'm "suspected" of downloading something illegally because I'm using a seedbox.


They are awesome. If you can get a couple of people to go in it with you the cost is pretty low. I love my 10mb upload/download stream
 
2012-03-16 02:54:45 PM

BumpInTheNight:
Since its virtually impossible to completely lock down a wireless router already...this is uncool turf for sure.


And that really is the crux of the problem isn't it? From a technological point of view breaking in to someones WiFi is trivially easy, even with WPA2 and the like. Many ISP's are shipping preconfigured routers with the key already set but because they have to work with anything & everything it's running WEP.

Now we can dance around the legalities of doing that till we're blue in the face but you've still got a Cease & Desist/throttled connection for something you didn't do and did your best to mitigate.

A lot of these bits of legislation show, quite clearly to my mind, that the people writing it are still thinking in terms of v90 modems and phone lines; where it was a far assumption a household only had a single physical line. Now we're talking about wireless repeaters that can and do throw a signal well outside an individuais property boundaries. How the hell is your average person supposed to stop it doing that?
 
2012-03-16 03:00:47 PM

Vaneshi: BumpInTheNight:
Since its virtually impossible to completely lock down a wireless router already...this is uncool turf for sure.

And that really is the crux of the problem isn't it? From a technological point of view breaking in to someones WiFi is trivially easy, even with WPA2 and the like. Many ISP's are shipping preconfigured routers with the key already set but because they have to work with anything & everything it's running WEP.

Now we can dance around the legalities of doing that till we're blue in the face but you've still got a Cease & Desist/throttled connection for something you didn't do and did your best to mitigate.

A lot of these bits of legislation show, quite clearly to my mind, that the people writing it are still thinking in terms of v90 modems and phone lines; where it was a far assumption a household only had a single physical line. Now we're talking about wireless repeaters that can and do throw a signal well outside an individuais property boundaries. How the hell is your average person supposed to stop it doing that?


Ah well its going to be interesting times that's for sure, its already been possible to draw attention to someone else using their wireless access but yah bringing in the 'mainstream' via becoming directly responsible for copyright policing is going to accelerate this problem into the light a fair bit. Or just going without any local access wireless devices...hahahahahaha! :P
 
2012-03-16 03:04:26 PM

Defeated: Here's the thing. The only thing that will change with me not being able to download CDs? I won't listen to new unheard of bands anymore. The only bands I'll be listening to will be from my collection or over the radio or it's free internet equivalent. If I truly enjoy the band I'll find other ways of getting their CDs, thift stores, bargain bins, ebay, craig's list, ect. I'm not going to pay the ridiculous prices on CDs anymore, I haven't for years and I will not start, period.

My new movies? As much movies as I download, I still manage to go out to the cinema as much as I can afford to watch on the big screen, alot of times movies I've already downloaded cams to make sure they weren't complete crap. But screw that, if they're going to bring the war to my door step its time to take up a new hobby, no more theaters. I have to drive to another freaking town to get to one anyways, so more gas savings for me.

Are they assuming I'm going to start buying their 20+ dollar new release dvds all of a sudden now that I won't be able to snatch from the internet? No, that's not going to happen. I'm going to continue to either wait until they find their way into the bargain bin or I'm going to rent them for a dollar at my local DVD rental machine.

These people believe they're entitled to my money, and now that they've gone out of their way to make it harder for me to get their products, They believe I will all of a sudden start buying their products at full price. No. That's not going to happen. The vast majority of my money was never going to go to you people in the first place, all you've done is make sure that the bands will not be heard, the movies will not be viewed.

People's hard work will not be appreciated. The money I do spend on your products has evaporated, not increased.


Uh, they are entitled to your money when you use their product... That's kinda how economies work.

Now, as to your larger point, yes the pricing system is broken. There is no "market price" for these products. Labels are guilty of price fixing. As demand for a product or service goes down, the price should decline accordingly until it finds its new level. That doesn't tend to happen. However, that does not change the fact that just because it's only worth $5 to you, you don't get to force your price on the publisher. You either wait until the price reflects your perceived value, or you abstain from consuming the product.

There are all sorts of moral justifications for piracy (and plenty of immoral ones...), but your post merely comes off as a petulant, entitled child who thinks they are owed everything on their own terms.

That may not have been how you intended to sound, but there it is.

None of us are owed access to another person's labor until we've agreed with them on fair compensation. Some people choose to give their labor for free, and that's their right. Others choose to place too high a value on it, and that's their right as well. Simply do as you said and choose not to partake.

Full Disclosure: I'm an old-school pirate from way back. I cleaned up my act (mostly) because of companies like Valve and Netflix, who began offering me what I wanted all along - fair pricing. There are still some things that I obtain via other means, primarily because obtaining them any other way is literally impossible. Shows that have no US distribution, games that have fallen into abandonware limbo (or like Thrill Kill, never saw full release), movies that are simply lost (Megaforce!)... However, I do not see myself as entitled to these things. I would gladly offer compensation for their acquisition. There is simply no possible way to do such a thing.

Just as I like being paid for my work, I like to make sure that the people who make things I like get paid for theirs.
 
2012-03-16 03:17:59 PM

Macinfarker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: alowishus: The RIAA middle men aren't necessary anymore.

They weren't necessary since the age of radio. It's perfectly legal to record any song you hear for free on the radio, what exactly is the difference between that and the internet other than convenience? The end result is the same to all parties involved, you get a free song.

Methinks you need to go and re-read the law, kind sir.


Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read the law (new window)
 
2012-03-16 03:49:31 PM
For the last time, the downloading isn't illegal. It's the uploading.

Do you really think the customer should be held responsible for knowing who owns the copyright on everything they buy? Downloading for free is no different.

There is nothing in copyright law that says you can't receive something copyrighted without the owner's permission.

However, the fact that torrenting also requires you to upload violates copyright law because you are duplicating/distributing the work.
 
2012-03-16 04:05:23 PM

Kuroshin:
Uh, they are entitled to your money when you use their product... That's kinda how economies work.


Not so fast. Actually, they believe they're entitled to the money I have that I was never going to spend on them in the first place. If piracy never existed the amount I spent on them would be the same. And that's what I think they don't understand. They think taking away piracy is going to magically increase their profits and it won't. At least not from me or anyone else who sees entertainment the way I do.

For example, lets say I have downloaded Adam Sandler's new comedy "Jack and Jill". I've watched it, decided it wasn't worth even having on my hard drive let alone paying money for a copy, it's deleted and forgotten. Without piracy, I see the commercials, I read the reviews, I Still decide not to spend money on it, Is it because I -know- its a crappy movie? No, its because I won't even take a chance on spending my money on it. Either way they do not get any money from me.

I'm well aware the way I see things and do things makes me look like a petulant entitled child in your eyes, but I truly do not care, and it doesn't change the fact I still feel entitled to the best movies for my money. With or without piracy, they weren't going to get my money anyways.

I agree whole heartedly that the people responsible for a product I enjoy and appreciate deserve my money, but if you want to go in that direction I'm not convinced that the percentage of the money that goes to the people actually responsible for the product is enough. Going further, I'm not sure I really want any percentage of my money to go to supporting the RIAA or MIAA. Kind of a sticky situation the more I think about it. Perhaps full boycott is the way to go, or just keep ripping off the net for free like a form of protest? =P

Finally, you basically undo your entire moral ground by saying its ok for you to pirate in order to obtain television shows without US distribution, abandonware, or unobtainable movies. By your line of thinking if you cannot pay for the content then you do not deserve access to the content whether or not ability to pay exists.

I may sound like a petulant entitled child, but you sound like a god damn hypocrite.
 
2012-03-16 04:06:15 PM

BumpInTheNight: Or just going without any local access wireless devices...hahahahahaha! :P


That'd be so god damn funny. If their PR bunnies are correct, BT have a system in place whereby if you are a BT customer and have a 'home hub' and someone outside (but nothing to do with you) has a BT wireless dongle for their laptop... it will connect to your home hub. They won't be able to see your machines but they will be using your connection to do stuff, it won't count against your transfer allowance though.

This is by design. If you think about it that's kinda neat and a good use of wireless technology.

Are BT going to come running to your defence when the C&D aimed at something your IP did but wasn't you lands? Nope. Can you disable or opt-out of this functionality? Nope.

I'm not quite sure if this will cause FAIL, WIN or so much FAIL the dial goes round to WIN again when people deliberately drive around doing this (and the UK gets similar legislation obviously) to cause outrage and public awareness.
 
2012-03-16 04:26:30 PM

falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.


So how does that work when the stuff you're downloading illegally cannot be bought?

Good example, one of my favorite cartoons as a kid was a little known title called "The Mysterious Cities of Gold." It first aired in the US in 1986. Do you know when the first time it was available for purchase in the US was? 2009. It was literally 23 years before you could buy an english copy of this cartoon. If you wanted it in French, or German, or Japanese, those you could buy. Not english.

I remember pirating old real video files transcribed off what must have been hundredth generation VHS tapes back in the early 00's just to be able to re-live my favorite childhood show.

It was illegal, but there was literally no other way to get it. You know what I did in 2009 the instant word went out that it was coming out on DVD? I emailed the manufacturer and asked to be put on a mailing list to know when I could put in a pre-order. I have the special edition box set of the entire series sitting proudly on my shelf to this day. And my cousin (also her favorite show as a kid) got another box set as her Christmas present that year.

So please, don't get on your moral high horse about how all pirating is wrong. If these people had simply put out one stinking VHS copy of the series in the QUARTER CENTURY it was available, it wouldn't have been necessary for me to "steal" it. A lot of us that illegally download things would *JUMP* at the chance to buy what we download, but are never given that chance in the first place.
 
2012-03-16 05:06:51 PM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-03-16 05:09:57 PM

TheOmni: I believe their take on it is that "illegally downloading" such things is a violation of their Terms of Service which means they'll claim you violated the contract first allowing them to take punitive measures. I would like to see how it turns out in court though.


Of course, they haven't proven that you downloaded it, hence printers getting takedown notices in the past. (new window)
 
2012-03-16 05:11:52 PM
Here's my problem with RIAA (and MPAA) lawsuits and their whole "File-sharing is STEALING" campaign:

Scenario 1: Billy walks into Best Buy, finds the new Ke$ha CD on the shelf, sticks it in his coat pocket and walks to the door. He gets caught, walked into a little room, and the cops come. He's charged with shoplifting (STEALING!) and suffers the following penalties:
1. Pay a fine of $400.
2. He gets community service for two weeks (it's his first offense; but the worst he'd get is 93 days in jail).
3. He's on probation for 90 days.

Scenario 2: Billy downloads Ke$ha's new CD from The Pirate Bay, and it's a monitored download. RIAA gets involved, and they send him a threatening letter telling him he's being sued for illegally downloading music (STEALING!) and he is to suffer the following penalties:
1. Pay $150,000 fine PER SONG, so he owes 14 x $150,000 or $2,100,000 (two million dollars!)
2. Loss of Internet service via a permanent ban from the ISP.
3. Possible restraining order barring Billy from using a computer for a specific period of time.


So answer me this: If file-sharing is STEALING, then why is it not treated the same as STEALING? Why is there such a HUGE gulf between fines ($400 vs. $2.1 million)?

Actually taking the CD and walking out of the store with it is punished FAR less severely than downloading just ONE song from the same CD... Yet they're trying to tell us they're treating file-sharing like it's STEALING?!?!

THE F♣CK THEY ARE!

The campaign referring to file-sharing as stealing is disingenuous at best, and outright fraud at worst. If I STEAL music, I get a small fine and community service. If I FILE-SHARE music, I get a TWO MILLION DOLLAR FINE and major blacklisting.

There's no goddamn way that file-sharing is treated the same as stealing; It's obvious to anyone who can tell the difference between $400 and $2,100,000.
 
2012-03-16 05:12:03 PM

Edymnion: falcon176: they give you a warning first. stop downloading shiat illegally and buy things.

So how does that work when the stuff you're downloading illegally cannot be bought?

Good example, one of my favorite cartoons as a kid was a little known title called "The Mysterious Cities of Gold." It first aired in the US in 1986. Do you know when the first time it was available for purchase in the US was? 2009. It was literally 23 years before you could buy an english copy of this cartoon. If you wanted it in French, or German, or Japanese, those you could buy. Not english.

I remember pirating old real video files transcribed off what must have been hundredth generation VHS tapes back in the early 00's just to be able to re-live my favorite childhood show.

It was illegal, but there was literally no other way to get it. You know what I did in 2009 the instant word went out that it was coming out on DVD? I emailed the manufacturer and asked to be put on a mailing list to know when I could put in a pre-order. I have the special edition box set of the entire series sitting proudly on my shelf to this day. And my cousin (also her favorite show as a kid) got another box set as her Christmas present that year.

So please, don't get on your moral high horse about how all pirating is wrong. If these people had simply put out one stinking VHS copy of the series in the QUARTER CENTURY it was available, it wouldn't have been necessary for me to "steal" it. A lot of us that illegally download things would *JUMP* at the chance to buy what we download, but are never given that chance in the first place.


We would've totally bought all these if they were available to buy I swear (^)

next talking point please
 
2012-03-16 05:23:21 PM

falcon176: We would've totally bought all these if they were available to buy I swear


Well that's why PC gaming is dead, all the piracy. And you can't pirate console games. I know this because the games publishers said so. Which makes your link suspect because we know these companies never ever lie.

No point beyond stating the obvious that their is a lot of bullshiat on either side of the argument and reiterating that he was talking, specifically, about a 1980's cartoon that wasn't released on DVD for 23 years not a modern AAA game.

Similar arguments are made with regards to fan-subbed Anime and Manga's, yes, it's copyright infringement but the company has zero intention of releasing it in that language (English) or that territory (USA/UK/AUS).
 
2012-03-16 05:32:43 PM

Vaneshi: falcon176: We would've totally bought all these if they were available to buy I swear

Well that's why PC gaming is dead, all the piracy. And you can't pirate console games. I know this because the games publishers said so. Which makes your link suspect because we know these companies never ever lie.

No point beyond stating the obvious that their is a lot of bullshiat on either side of the argument and reiterating that he was talking, specifically, about a 1980's cartoon that wasn't released on DVD for 23 years not a modern AAA game.

Similar arguments are made with regards to fan-subbed Anime and Manga's, yes, it's copyright infringement but the company has zero intention of releasing it in that language (English) or that territory (USA/UK/AUS).


those are numbers from BitTorrent and it lists console game numbers as well, which are significantly lower.
While his example is a 23 year old show, he also said "A lot of us that illegally download things would *JUMP* at the chance to buy what we download, but are never given that chance in the first place." A lot of companies and indie developers bend over backwards and pirates still pirate.
 
2012-03-16 06:13:51 PM

Vaneshi: That'd be so god damn funny. If their PR bunnies are correct, BT have a system in place whereby if you are a BT customer and have a 'home hub' and someone outside (but nothing to do with you) has a BT wireless dongle for their laptop... it will connect to your home hub. They won't be able to see your machines but they will be using your connection to do stuff, it won't count against your transfer allowance though.This is by design. If you think about it that's kinda neat and a good use of wireless technology.Are BT going to come running to your defence when the C&D aimed at something your IP did but wasn't you lands? Nope. Can you disable or opt-out of this functionality? Nope.



I've used this exact system as a temporary measure after moving house to cover the time between moving in and having my own broadband connection. Connect and pay by credit card to BT for limited yet still very useful access. IIRC it is optional and rewards those who offer their own hubs at home with free access to other people's shared BT hubs.
 
2012-03-16 06:21:23 PM
im glad my isp is the local telephone company....they dont give a shiat. lol As long as i pay my bill i can download whatever i want.
 
2012-03-16 06:21:44 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: If the industry chooses not to adapt and makes a poor business decision, it will suffer the consequences.


These ARE the consequences.

Piracy and other black markets are almost invariably the result of market failures. In the RIAAs case, that's exactly correct.

The RIAA is in the position of a chronic smoker who gets pissed off at all the phlegm he keeps coughing up, but he absolutely refuses to change his habits.
 
2012-03-16 06:52:48 PM

Mad_Radhu: I have to give the music industry some credit for at least working with retailers like Amazon to make music available DRM free and for low prices. They are not nearly as bad as the publishing industry, who are basically forcing Amazon to charge high prices on a lot of ebooks and requiring DRM that locks you on to one platform.


Don't give the music industry that much credit. In fact, don't give them any credit at all. What they really wanted was high prices and DRM that locks you into one platform.

The only reason they allowed Apple to sell music is because Apple gave them exactly what they demanded as a condition for licensing -- DRM that tied the purchase to the device(s) that would play it back. Then they got pissed at Apple for not letting them raise the price to $2.50 per song.

The foreign (France) antitrust suits against Apple for locking you into one platform is what brought about DRM-free music for sale. The major labels' hate for Apple (for selling billions of songs, evidently) is what opened up licensing agreements with Amazon and others. Actual retail competition is what brought about deals at Amazon.

This is exactly the opposite of what the RIAA wanted.
 
2012-03-16 07:23:52 PM

falcon176: those are numbers from BitTorrent and it lists console game numbers as well, which are significantly lower.

I refute the numbers accuracy. There is a website you can visit that shows what you've downloaded. When I punched in my IP it showed a list of things, a lot of which I hadn't downloaded... but it was also missing things which I had.

Data collection with regards to BitTorrent is still a very airy fairy thing and the picture highly incomplete.

A lot of companies and indie developers bend over backwards and pirates still pirate.
Yes they do but as has already been identified over several generations of these threads you have the 'digital kleptomaniacs' who download anything and everything with no intention of ever using it/needing it or really wanting it beyond feeding their kleptomania and the people who'd never pay for it no matter how much you bend over being lumped in the same category as people like the OP, who would very much like to pay for it but can't due to a lack of availability (which again over successive threads we've all agreed is a very silly thing indeed in the digital age).

I would argue that when you stop labelling everyone as a pirate and begin being more granular the people like the OP, who represent a failure of the services, greatly outnumber the digital klepto's and the "won't pay" brigade.

I would also argue that you might as well leave the digital klepto's alone as well, they're harmless and much better they go crazy online than in a real store. They're kleptomaniacs they can't really help themselves. The "won't pay" brigade however is a very different story.

But how you go about telling them apart at a glance I couldn't say as I haven't figured that bit out yet.

 
2012-03-16 08:04:23 PM

LiberalWeenie: For the last time, the downloading isn't illegal. It's the uploading.


The fallacy in this argument (which I would myself vehemently argue until recently) is that the downloader is the one making the copy.
 
2012-03-16 11:42:00 PM
Could we just start establishing local ISPs (as a local utility) and tell the RIAA to shove it? (Or do I just have no idea how the world wide web tube work?)
 
2012-03-17 03:08:44 AM
They had the potential of a sale that is deprived. I could see a legal challenge to this. When you "stole" it you deprived them of the potential to sell it to you - even if you would not have bought it, they still had the potential to sell it to you. Potential sales are a valued business asset - often called projected numbers, they get revised of course, but they are deprived of that asset when you (we, really) do this.

Now, keep in mind, I'm quite the little kleptomaniac (if this is stealing) too. Well, historically I am. I don't actually bother with it these days, I've got everything I want and I never actually listen to or watch any of it. Hell, I have cracked software on here that I've actually paid for and forgotten/lost keys. I have some I'll never pay for AND I have the cash to pay for it. I'm just a cheap prick with an attitude.

I at least try to be honest about what I'm doing though. And, as I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how well it would hold up but it would make an interesting case. I don't think it would be all that hard to get the current crop of assholes occupying SCOTUS to agree to it being theft based on the deprivation of potential as an asset.

Either way, legally it isn't currently theft. It is still stealing ethically - taking something that doesn't belong to us. The argument over the definition is a great way to ease some folks minds I suppose. If it makes them feel more ethical then, well, we don't have much these days. I suppose we should allow the populace that.

As for them changing their business model? LOL They don't need to. Not their job. You're not going to bankrupt them. Not in your lifetime... They'll just get more draconian and erode our rights through paid for legislation tacked onto the end of a farm aid bill. All that so you can listen to pop music... Good job. It's cute when folks make it into a crusade.

Alas, this is too late to get much notice. That's okay too... I'm not going to change anyone's mind nor do I hope to. Steal it all as far as I'm concerned. I'll survive the consequences just fine, I can afford a lawyer.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report