 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA |  A**holes
It seems to me that they are working for corporate America.
--
"Stealing" software since 2002 | |
|
 | 
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA
1 edit | Re: A**holes I think we need a new government department. Call it the Department of Common Sence. Every other Department would have to ask What's up DOC before making a move. This would save the government lots of wasted money and embarrassment.
--
Ask me how to start an online Home based Business. | |
|
| | 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: A**holes I agree...... | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | |
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
1 edit | Yaddy yadday, same old rant... The middleman is just as much at fault as the other 2 when it comes to P2P.
Hub operators are suppose to admin their hubs. If they don't attempt to prevent illegal activities, then they are just as bad as the sharers. | |
|
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... So can we come arrest your ass for indirectly funding P2P operations? Lets see here, you pay for your internet service provider, they are the middle man that provide the connection. So I see it your just as much at fault with that line of thinking. 
--
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." - Confucius - - - - - - - - - - - Streamfire.net- - AIM - CoNFuCiUsNiCk | |
|
| 
Harddrive
A Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| Are you serious?
You mean to tell me your thinking on the same lines as the gun manufacturers are responsible for the killings at Columbine or anywhere else? And that your ISP is responsible for anyone that downloads child porn or copyrighted music? Grokster was just relieved of this liability last week.
P2P is a venue for sharing. Its up to the end user to use it in the correct means, just like the bullet that is bought at Wal-Mart. Its up to the buyer to not use it for illegal means. | |
|
| 
frosgate
@mi.ch
| "Hub operators are suppose to admin their hubs. If they don't attempt to prevent illegal activities, then they are just as bad as the sharers."
Nope. In the USA, a service provider is not to be held responsible for the content of that service, IF the service is unmoderated. If they don't attempt the monitor or moderate the service, they aren't responsible for it's content. | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... said by frosgate:
"Hub operators are suppose to admin their hubs. If they don't attempt to prevent illegal activities, then they are just as bad as the sharers."
Nope. In the USA, a service provider is not to be held responsible for the content of that service, IF the service is unmoderated. If they don't attempt the monitor or moderate the service, they aren't responsible for it's content.
I keep a close eye on a couple IRC servers that we get requests to shut down channels on. You just can't monitor it 100 % of the time. It's a free service for people and some abuse it. Such is life.
BTW does any one else see this as a waste of money that could be better spent in other places? Why not let the RIAA and their ilk keep on doing what their doing and use the raid money in other places. But that is only my opinion.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| Affliction
join:2004-02-19
Delta, BC
| To paraphrase a certain Canadian judge, a user who happens to have copyrighted material in a shared folder is no more at fault than a library placing a photocopier in a room full of copyrighted material. By your logic, if someone were to photocopy a book using said photocopier, it would be Xerox's fault for not working some kind of "copyrighted materials detector" into their product that ejects a DMCA notice instead of a copy. | |
|
| |
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC | Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... No, it would make it the libraries fault, since a machine is not a human, thus it can not be held accountable. | |
|
| | |
Harddrive
A Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... So in that regard, the computers cannot be held liable, but the persons that bought the computers and put them in easy reach of evil doers. Its the library's fault. You can't sue a building so you have to find out who put that copier there when the library bought it.
I've got it!!! Sue everyone who's ever bought a computer and tell them that you have no idea who is downloading copyrighted material, so you're all in the sh*t!!! Works for me.
So is the end user not responsible for his actions because the computer was placed in such a location that evilness could be done so easily? | |
|
| | | |
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC | Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... Did you ever go to school? Shesh, I'm tired of trying to explain things that are obvious. | |
|
| | | | |
Harddrive
A Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... Honors High School Grad, Honorably Discharged US Navy Submarine Sonar Technician, Senior Voice/Data Technician for Avaya, working on degree in Computer Information Systems. I like English and History too.
Yeah, I've been to school...and still going. What's that got to do with you having one opinion that I and a few others here disagree with?
Obvious is if you get poisoned by the lemonade stand, you sue the little girl's parents cause she is a minor. What you are trying to say is that Kool Aid should be held responsible.
said by Pake  :
Shesh, I'm tired of trying to explain things that are obvious.
Me too! Shesh! | |
|
| | | | | |
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... Ok, I'll put it simple for you.
There's a crop grower, a drug dealer, and a buyer. You're basically saying that you shouldn't hold the drug dealer responsible.
Or, how about this. The ABC store, a clerk, and a teenager. You are saying that the clerk shouldn't be held responsible for selling the teenager the alcohol, since he's only a middleman. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Anondood
@look.ca
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... And how do those examples relate to the current subject? Hubs aren't a middleman making profit, they don't actually take part in the transfer of copyrighted items.
Hubs are like rooms. If I lend a room of my house to someone (for free) and let him stay a few days, am I responsible if he does illegal activities in the room? What if the room was locked and there was no way I could know what was going on there (like a hub can't know what people are trading)? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... If someone is in YOUR house doing ILLEGAL things, it's still YOUR responsibility.
Here's another one for you, a father helps his 18yr old son get drunk. The father didn't make any money off it, so you're saying we shouldn't lock up the father, because he was of legal age to drink, but his son wasn't? | |
|
|
Harddrive
A Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| exactly, just like the p2p apps themselves. they can't be held responsible for the activities bad end users. if the p2p apps were only used for good intentions, this would be no argument and life would be a utopia.
car makers aren't sued because a drunk driver kills someone. | |
|
|
Anondood
@209.161.x.x
| Once again, you're talking about knowing directly what the other is doing.
I'll give you another example since you don't seem to be getting it...
I have a field that I own. The laws let me have commercial activies on that field. I'm a nice guy, so I'm letting anyone build their small booth where they can sell (or share) their own stuff. Would I be liable if one of those booths was selling counterfeit material? I really, truly doubt it, because as far as I know, when a seller is selling illegal stuff, they don't arrest the flea market operators, but the vendor... (even though vendors pushing illegal things come back over and over again)
Kids at school may use the installations to do illegal things. Should we shut down the schools because there's illegal activity going on inside?
Once again, the hubs only provide a meeting place for individuals. From there, individuals only engage in activities with other individuals. The Hub has actually no way at all to know what these activities are, because the users do it directly, they don't go through the hub. It's like a meeting service, after giving out the two person's phone numbers, they don't know what these persons are going to do in the private, outside of what they provide. | |
|
| |
Harddrive
A Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT
| Re: Yaddy yadday, same old rant... and along those lines, the p2p app might only know that it is passing packets of data between users...not creating a log in a data base somewhere for tracking. if they did have a log, then they could be held liable for not turning those records over to the proper authorities for prosecuting the end users for illegal activities.
--
Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered, for just such an emergency.-Foghorn Leghorn | |
|
HrMhRm
@mindspring.com
| Puah What do you think is more efficient in taking out a network... Removing each and every client in the network, or simply removing the network itself? The hub is the network. Does he understand FBI and other organizations are getting to the "root" not the leaf of the problem? Look at it this way, if I were the FBI, I would also, go for the hub. No hub, no sharing, no sharing, no illegal downloading possible, and isn't that what they are aiming at? And I can assure you, most if not all DC hubs stick a stupid message saying that it's their responsibility. Considering the fact that most of the stuff on hubs ARE warez... I find it highly "unlikely" that hub ops don't know what is "illegal". And oh yeah, did I mention ops talk about warez ALL the time? | |
|
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| Re: Puah But running a hub is not illegal AFAIK.
They are a bunch of corporate bitches. If something like 9/11 happens again they can say they were busy arresting p2p users.
You see it's more important to increase profits of corporate America than saving lives.
--
"Stealing" software since 2002 | |
|
| | 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Puah I love this, absolutely love it. The arguments in here are appalling. If you don't want your P2P networks taken offline, stop performing illegal activities on them. How do you feel knowing that your activity is affecting someone you claim to be innocent? said by Anonymous :
You see it's more important to increase profits of corporate America than saving lives.
So it is your contention that we should cease prosecuting thieves and cyber crime until we solve our terrorist problem? I think we should be doing both at the same time myself...
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Puah said by Anonymous :
No that's not my contention. Real thieves should be prosecuted, but I don't see any here.
How does downloading software or music without paying for it not constitute theft?
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation. | |
|
| | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Puah said by yock :
How does downloading software or music without paying for it not constitute theft?
For one copyright law is about compensating the artist when someone makes money off their work. When the work is shared with no money changing hands then no compensation should be required. Somebody bought the CD that had that music and if they decided to share it without charging (P2P) then I don't see the problem.
What most people don't realize is the RIAA's claims on copyright law are dubious at best and downright false at worst. There is a simple guideline to copyright infringement. If you take money or credit for someone else's work you are infringing. Anything and everything else is just a distraction. | |
|
| | | | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Puah That's certainly a very loose interpretation of copyright law.
Let me state that I took the time to write my Congress persons asking them to vote against the Induce Act, so I'm not enemy to file sharing. I simply wish to see legal protest to the industry's actions against consumers. Whether you want to believe it or not, the RIAA's threats aren't simple posturing (though they are despicable). They have legal ground to stand on, since the use license on the product states that the product may not be copied without the consent (compensation) of the copyright holder. Making the product available over the internet certainly constitutes duplication, and therefore violates the license on the product.
Just because their methods are Draconian and out of proportion to what might be prudent, does not give anyone license to ignore the law behind it.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation. | |
|
| | | | | | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: Puah said by yock :
That's certainly a very loose interpretation of copyright law.
It also seems to be the one the courts agree with.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by yock :
Just because their methods are Draconian and out of proportion to what might be prudent, does not give anyone license to ignore the law behind it.
That's just it. The loose interpretation you mentioned is actually coming from the RIAA. The ONLY place in copyright law that the RIAA keeps harping on is the fact distribution is mentioned in copyright infringement. The problem is the law is written as "sales and distribution". The two were supposed to go together, but the RIAA leaves out the sales part and just says any distribution is in violation. The only other part of copyright law that mentions non-profit distribution is in conditions of infringement where distribution seriously affects the copyright holder's livelihood... which has yet to happen from P2P.
What I am saying is the RIAA is exploiting a grey area in copyright law that was not supposed to be exploited like this. My original definition is the very reason copyright law was made. Read the introduction or some of the early draftings and you will see something about how copyright is supposed to help proliferate the arts and not keep record companies rich.
So essentially your disgust of the record industry and their tactics has more validity than they would like you to know about. All it would take is one lawsuit against someone very knowledgeable of copyright law and the record industry's tactics for their whole house of cards to fall down. | |
|
| | | | |
Anondood
@look.ca
| What you don't seem to understand is that the hub owners don't actually share files, so they don't commit theft.
Also, anyone can setup a hub within less than one hour, so you could have you hub up and running. If 500 people rush in and start trading, how are you going to monitor every 30000 files that those people share?
We're not talking about corporate hubs or any common relation between hubs other than sharing a name and a website. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post |
| | | |
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| Legally it is a theft, but there are other far more serious crimes that should be handled first.
But lately I don't take US laws for granted. You see if you have enough cash and rent a congressman or two you can create your own laws...
--
"Stealing" software since 2002 | |
|
| 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
2 edits | Its impossible to take down every user, but if you take down the hub something gets accomplished. 1 less hub for everyone to use. | |
|
| |
See 10 replies to this post |
|
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Apparently you haven't don your research, how about you look at some hub lists, and you'll realize that 95% of all the hubs are in the UK.  | |
|
| | B777300
join:2002-01-02
| Re: Puah said by technick :
Apparently you haven't don your research, how about you look at some hub lists, and you'll realize that 95% of all the hubs are in the UK.
Yes if you are using a UK hublist.. UK hubs are 25-40% of the hubs in europe.
--
Can you say fiber optics? | |
|
| |
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | I haven't used it in awhile, but I just use the default list that comes from dc++ default download. Alot in Sweden... | |
|
|
ackack
@sify.net
| " What do you think is more efficient in taking out a network... Removing each and every client in the network, or simply removing the network itself? "
LOL in that case just SHUTDOWN the INTERNET itself
why just concentrate on a network ? !!!!!
Got what is wrong with your thinking ? | |
|
| |
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: Puah Remember that article earliar this month about all banks transfering money over the net now... that would shut down our banks  | |
|
| |
HrmHrm
@mindspring.com
| Because the internet as a whole does not distribute copyrighted material. It's called "localization" AKA a big mass of users doing a specific thing, AKA downloading illegal content. The whole internet as a whole does not download illegal content, it's probably spam being sent across the networks. Got what is wrong with YOUR thinking? | |
|
| 
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
1 edit | LOL. This is hilarious. Theres a bunch of people saying copyright theft is wrong and take downt he hubs... yadda yadda.
Did any of these people bother to actually read the article? Direct quote from the article:
"It could be a song YOU recorded to MP3 that you want the world to hear. That's up to you. That's the USER'S responsibility. We do not condone or encourage piracy of any form. Unfortunately this fact also escaped the powers that be. A 'hub' is simply a meeting place for people to come to and have fun, chat, and share what THE USER decides they want to ( and is responsible for). The hub operator DOES NOT in ANY way share or distrubute ANY material, copyrighted or otherwise."
Simply operating a hub is not illegal, no matter what the users of the hub decide to do with it. The 9th cicuit court of appeals has ruled this to be true in the case of RIAA against Grokster/MorpheousStreamcast. The writers of these programs cant be held responsible for their users actions because the files are not on their networks. This is a court of law saying this.
You'd have to shut down the internet if this weren't true.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | As you place limits and controls on me, you place them on yourselves. | |
|
| |
sorne guy
@66.84.x.x
| Re: Puah there's a big hole in your argument, (and underground's "answer man" guidoz,who wrote the post you quoted)
quote:
We do NOT police these files beyond the stuff we KNOW is illegal (underage porn, beastality, etc). Beyond that we are very clear with one point: THE USER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SHARE!
the fact that they police files at all blows them out of the water. if you block one kind of content (nasty porn), why can't you ban music? or movies?
they say "the user is responsible", but that doesn't mean squat when the hub has ultimate veto power on what stays and goes | |
|
| | |
Anondood
@look.ca
| Re: Puah Well they try to, but that doesn't mean they are effective. Mostly the "filtering" happens when an admin logs on and checks for some file names and kick some people out (a bit like what happens on the IRC).
In other words, even though they try to block the some "obvious" type of files (ie: teen13.avi, dogxxx.avi), if those files are renamed to something not evident, they'll be there and available. | |
|
|
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| said by sorne guy:
the fact that they police files at all blows them out of the water. if you block one kind of content (nasty porn), why can't you ban music? or movies?
In pennsylvania the courts ruled that ISP's had to block content of child porn. Does that then mean they are automatically responsible to block everything else that someone doesn't like or something that is illegal and turn the ISP's into content police? No. It doesn't.
said by sorne guy:
there's a big hole in your argument, (and underground's "answer man" guidoz,who wrote the post you quoted)
What your saying is that he is just a liar and the FBI is telling the truth. I know my government is corrupt and this leads me believe the person writing the article is telling more truth than the FBI.
Defending oneself online does not make for a hole in an argument.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | As you place limits and controls on me, you place them on yourselves. | |
|
| |
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| 
Da22in
Buck Fush
join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC
clubs:
| said by HrMhRm:
No hub, no sharing, no sharing, no illegal downloading possible, and isn't that what they are aiming at?...
Once again....downloading is NOT illegal. Distributing I.P. or copyrighted material without expressed permission from the owner IS illegal.
This is another hopeless cause, like the "Drug War". It will never be stopped, until people stop using it.
--
Out the 100Base-T, past the firewall, through the router, down the cable bus, over the leased line,off the bridge...nothing but Net. | |
|
| |
See 13 replies to this post |
BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON | It's true.. Why should the hub owner/operators be responsible for what other people share? Every DC hub has a minimum share requirement. No one says it had to be copyrighted material. But of course, it's expected that the media blows things out of proportion. | |
|
B777300
join:2002-01-02
1 edit | Bleh I've been a DC user for over 3 years and this is ALL bullshit, a hub does not share a single bit of copyrighted meterial, it just functions as a 'hub' (grouping users together), everything a user shares is the user's responsibiltiy. Please read his rant to understand more.
»p2pnet.net/story/2269
EDIT: He moved his rant to here: »p2pnet.net/index.php?page=commen···ent=4762 | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Clueless This Answer-Man character needs to get some of his own facts straight before he starts ragging on the media and the Feds.
quote:
We do NOT police these files beyond the stuff we KNOW is illegal (underage porn, beastality, etc).
I wonder what their policy on files which they obviously do not have the authority to distribute (commercial software, RIAA member-owned music, etc.)
quote:
It can be a FREE open source (non-copyrighted) Linux operating system downloaded from »www.LinuxISO.org.
Linux is in fact copyrighted, it is just distributed under a free-as-in-freedom license.
quote:
John Ashcroft has some explaining to do.
Here's a hint... quit breaking the law by distributing things that you are not supposed to be, and the Feds will most likely not bother you anymore.
--
www.swiftvets.com
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
somebodeez
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-24
here | Nice to see both sides of the story Wish the major medias would also present both sides. | |
|
| B777300
join:2002-01-02
1 edit | Re: Nice to see both sides of the story Yes but that is very unlikely.
sorry misunderstood it
--
Can you say fiber optics? | |
|
| |
somebodeez
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-24
here
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Nice to see both sides of the story said by B777300 :
Yes although its not presented by the medias.. He choosed to rant about their ignorance.
I meant in general. | |
|
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs:
1 edit | LOL, I was almost a customer! Sorry, wrong thread, please disregard! | |
|
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: LOL, I was almost a customer! Did I miss something??? I know im pretty tired, I didn't read anything about them selling computers.... | |
|
| B777300
join:2002-01-02 | He probably posted in the wrong place, happens  | |
|
| |
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs: | Re: LOL, I was almost a customer! D'oh! | |
|
| rockjock
join:2003-10-14
Salt Lake City, UT | Can anyone figure out this guy's talking about? | |
|
Taranis
join:2001-12-06
Mount Vernon, WA
| Mr. Innocent Bah, this group isn't as innocent as they pretend to be. They're hiding under a thin veil of "what we do is benign and perfectly legal. We're only here to chat and give each other a shoulder to cry on...".
Yeah.. riiiight..
I used to go on DC a few years ago. Anyone who actually believes that all there is there are Linux distros, other open-source software and private mp3's is dumber than they look. And there ARE requirements to be able to join a hub, be it 10GB or 100GB. Call it "join the network" or "login to the hub". It's the same friggin' thing!
Anyway, what kind of files would you expect to find on a hub with 50 users all sharing 100GB a piece?
Linux distros, my a$$...
And him saying when users are sharing copyright programs "frequently we will remind people that it's not welcome on our forums". The FORUMS, maybe. But we're not talking about the FORUMS, are we? We're talking about the HUBS. He knows damn well what they're talking about, but wants to mince words with the press, then throw the whole thing out because they used "Forum" or "network" instead of "hub"... gimme a break.
To be fair, I'm completely 100% anti-RIAA. I will never buy another new music CD. Furthermore, software makers (with the exception of game companies) will be lucky if they ever see a dime of my money ($200+ for an OS? Are you KIDDING??). Anyway, when the RIAA stops suing their customers and starts treating them like they should, I'll think about changing my ways. Until then, I'm more than happy doing my part to keep that puny music exec out of his BMW another month or so..
Governemnt agencies and politicians have more important threats to worry about (National Security, perhaps??). However, what else did you expect? Every once in awhile the politicians need to hit a soft target to appease their corporate backers that put them in office. DC users should've seen this coming..
This "answer man" need to get the facts out there and stop trying to mince words like a half-baked lawyer - it only makes him look like an idiot.
- JB | |
|
| AaronGibson2
join:2004-02-02
| Re: Mr. Innocent I agree, why the hell would I want to get some slow 10mbit upload from dc for my linux needs when I can hop on gigabit mirror sites and download from a reliable server which does not keep disconnecting...
DC's main focus is distributing pirated content. It is stupid to argue against that, as it takes about 2 minutes to hop on a hub and see what I mean.
However, within the law, I think that as the hubs themselves are clean as they do not actually transport/host the content. (like the grokster ruling)
If they want to make a bigger impact they should focus on the initial distributor. That is NOT the groups who rip the content, but the people who supply the groups with the stolen/leaked material. | |
|
| 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Taranis :
To be fair, I'm completely 100% anti-RIAA. I will never buy another new music CD. Furthermore, software makers (with the exception of game companies) will be lucky if they ever see a dime of my money ($200+ for an OS? Are you KIDDING??). Anyway, when the RIAA stops suing their customers and starts treating them like they should, I'll think about changing my ways. Until then, I'm more than happy doing my part to keep that puny music exec out of his BMW another month or so...
Actually, I had a similar attitude towards gaming companies as well, until I recently bought a copy of Doom 3 and was basically told to either remove CD emulation software or get lost when I tried to run it. I had to get a cracked EXE to get the game to run properly.
Anyway, since these game publishers are treating me like a thief even when I'm not, I might as well act like one. What runs on my computer is none of their business, and as long as my system meets minimum system requirements listed on the box, I expect it to work. And yes, I did check the box and nowhere on it did it say anything about CD emulation software.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
DOWN WITH NAZISM, FASCISM AND COMMUNISM!!! BOYCOTT RIAA!!! | |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | He just happned to be chatting using dc++... just like that lady was using kazaa as a media player. Just confess, the whole point of this DC++ hub was probably for the users to share stuff they shouldn't be sharing. | |
|
|
Safron
join:2001-07-25
Gray, GA
clubs:
| Better Idea Why don't we just outlaw operating systems?
Obviously, people are using these suspect operating systems to download copywrited material.
Hell, for that matter, let's make it a capital crime to possess or use a computer or a computer interface.
That will stop those pirate bastards! | |
|
| 
Tsume
Premium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Re: Better Idea Yeah, but then all of the material to pirate wouldn't exist either  | |
|
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| If it's shared it's illegal it seems! I'm getting sick of all these crazy tactics being pulled here. Why not just let people share files already! Let's face it, we aren't killing anyone or doing anything that threatens lives of anyone. all file sharers are doing is sending data to each other, God I had no idea sending data from one computer to another was such a crime! Since every single piece of music you hear on radio, or every single movie you watch on TV or video is copyrighted, then gee I guess every single last file that one shares on the internet is classified as illegal. I mean that's my thought anyway. If I'm not making any money off the sharing of files, then why should it matter what the hell I'm sharing? Here's an idea the RIAA/MPAA probably hate. Why not try and sell songs/movies or the like as regular unprotected files and put them on good fast sites. You pay a reasonable fee like say $10 a month or the like and you can download all you want at good fast speeds. Then I think we'd have a good compromise I'd think. If I want to backup my data, I could, unlike now with this DRM crap you get from these music services. And yes sharing of this stuff would still occur, but that's a fact of life, we like something, and we want folks to hear/see it. That shouldn't be looked upon as commiting a crime worse than murder. File sharing is one of the most basic things done on any computer network, and if these greedy folks don't like that, then shut down the whole internet or something. I've always thought of the internet as an awesome library, better than any regular library could ever be, but with crazy stuff like this going on, something needs to be done so the internet can continue to be the awesome tool it has become. Enough of this rading homes just so you can get more money in your pocket! | |
|
| Taranis
join:2001-12-06
Mount Vernon, WA | Re: If it's shared it's illegal it seems! ...very well put. Couldn't have said it better. It's unfortunate that corporate greed gets in the way of common sense. You're trying to inject logic and reason into something that has neither - just simple greed. | |
|
| jazzy112
join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND
| The difference is, your cable company pays license fees to the networks who pay license fees to the producers and so on and so forth. Same with radio, they pay the license fees and the huge electricity bill to send it too you. Same with sattelite tv or radio.
The point is every other distribution method has to pay licensing fees, therefore if your getting your protected material from folks who aren't paying license fees, then you are stealing. Period end of story. You want clean cheap music, pay for XM/Sirrius and capture it on your PC or Stand Alone CD Burner or Mini Disc. As long as you don't turn around and redistribute it to others you are not breaking the law.
The government can close an establishment down for playing FM Radio or residential versions of xm/sirius, I know it happens up here in podunk all the time.
So stop you're whining, with XM/Sirrius who needs the virus risk in the first place? One of my former co workers continually gets viruses because he's too stupid to know any better. | |
|
|
| Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs: | Re: John Ashcroft and the DOJ launched raids I want him...
...for a second term. | |
|
| | |
| | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: Into Cannibalism are we? said by antiphishing :
Beeper,
You are becoming a pain in the butt with your responses.  You haven't even given enough time to give you a rebuttal on the "Walmart" issue.
Apologies. Please use the weekend to good effect.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
|
Old Dude
@151.143.x.x | Troll Gibberish As in "This is all troll gibberish"... | |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| Wow.... I read the entire thread and, shit, this issue is almost as polarized as the dingbat, US party loyalty stuff we're seeing this election year.
I'd add response to previous posts but the atmosphere is just too charged: people who already agree would send "thumbs-up" endorsements and people who don't would rail against me or set me as an "ignore". Ugh. Copyright infringement is not a black & white issue: the offense of copyright infringement runs the gamut from "good on ya, mate!" in the US commercial, icon-making industry to "you a bad person" in the indy movie world. It's simply not a simple issue.
My stance? Infringe carefully and with objective, conscious evaluation. If you really want a product and approve of the way it was published then pay for it. If you loath the publishing methods as greedy, license manipulation but still want a copy then, think/eval twice, then infringe the thing. Legality is all fockedup just now and should not be considered as a guide. | |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY
| The new Policy Please if everyone would just tell on everyone for anything all of the time then no one would do anything at all and the world would be such a better place to police uh I mean live. There would be no crime but the constant fear that someone is watching your every move. After nervous breakdowns hit an all time record high they will rethink the policy and make a kinder, and gentler version that we can all live with. The Orwellian society is not that far off at the rate we are going. Please every time you use a product question its legitimacy by asking is this live or memorex. Its late I'm bored and old I can remember the vinyl the 8track and how you would record songs of the radio oops lost my train of thought. Oh well maybe we can make copies of these people and stone them for fun oh no we can't make copies without their express written consent, no wait maybe their parents would consent to us making copies. I'm not sure if I can post this as someone may claim to have the copyrights on words and thoughts. Can we still think? I wish I could think and therefor your not. If you read this post in its entirety then you are more bored than me. | |
|
DonoftheDead
Premium
join:2004-07-12
USofA
clubs:
·Comcast
| It's My Music! I am 50. I have bought all kinds of music over the years. Most of it is on cassette. It is easier and much faster to download the tunes than to convert them to mp3's. I have every right to download music that I already OWN! I already PAID for the music, I'm just saving myself a whole lotta time and work. So what's wrong with that? The Contitution and the Bill of Rights state the law MUST assume innocence until proven guilty. Is the gov and their bosses(RIAA) checking to see if the downloads are for paidfor, licensed, music? Or are they just assuming people are guilty without even checking? Which is ILLEGAL! I paid hard earned money for this stuff and if ANYONE tries to take it away from me I will yank their heads right out of their butts and stuff'em in their mama's mailbox. It's mine, I paid for it. I'm keepin' it and doing whatever I want with it(within the law, of course). Anyone that has a problem with that (are you listening, Asscroft?) can just kiss my hairy butt. | |
|
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| Re: It's My Music! I agree.
I bought & paid for music.
The media it was on has deteriorated & the music is no longer available, except for one-line sites [whatever they may be].
I bought the music, the artist has my nickle, so how is downloading it stealing money from the artist [when I already own it]? | |
|
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
| Why do you do it ? Threads like these drive me up the wall :
If you hate big government, corrupt politicians,
corporations and you think their content is way
overpriced Why do you pirate the copyright material ?
Just because you think it is overpriced or they are ripoff
artists does not give you the right to pirate the copyrighted
material.
just my .02 | |
|
| B777300
join:2002-01-02 | Re: Why do you do it ? Looks like someone wasn't reading all.. | |
|
| |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI | Re: Why do you do it ? Oh yes I have read this stuff over and over again, how people justify doing this sort of stuff. What I wrote pretty much summs it up. | |
|
| B777300
join:2002-01-02
1 edit | ok sorry, Let me explain..
If CDs were cheap (~$2), I don't think mp3 would be so common as they are now, Im not going to pay $15 for a CD that i only need one song from it, Anyhow, i rip the song(s) i want into mp3 and throw the CD to somewhere, p2p networks aren't something new, they were born in like 6 years ago to overcome the prices, now they're so popular, The RIAA only lost 10-20% of its market cause of p2p.
A hub does not host any single bit of copyright meterial, A hub is a server that connects users together, a hub is typically 2000 users and total share of >50 TB.
DC++ is just a way disturbe files like any other program like bittorrent or kazaa. A simple search and go downloading.
said by The register.uk:
"members are required to share 100gb of copyrighted material to join"
Thats very untrue, The meterial can be anything as long as its ok with the hub's rules (most forbid illegal porn, viruses etc but don't talk well about copyright\warez). A user must have a certain share (Average share size required is ~20 GB - A miminum share size exists to avoid users that share nothing or almost nothing from leeching. p2p exists because people share.)
--
Can you say fiber optics? | |
|
|
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI | *sigh* | |
|
| |
BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
1 edit | Re: Why do you do it ? edit: wrong thread | |
|
|
|
|
The UnderGround Network
New File Sharing Apps on the way?
