StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login  FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-04-20 07:25am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)

Pirate Bay: Now imposible to destroy

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, PeZook, D.Turtle, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 1 of 3
 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

CaptainChewbacca
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 12:29pm 

Browncoat Wookiee


Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Posts: 15715
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.
Link

Quote:
Soon The Pirate Bay will stop linking to .torrent files. Instead, the world’s largest BitTorrent site will only list so-called magnet links. One of the advantages of the switch is that The Pirate Bay will be much more portable, and easier to copy. A new torrent listing all titles and magnet links on The Pirate Bay proves this point, as the public can download a copy that fits easily on a small USB stick – or even a few dozen floppies.

Last month The Pirate Bay announced that it will stop hosting torrents in the very near future.

This change is expected to go into effect before the end of the month. From then on, Pirate Bay users can only download files through magnet links.

The Pirate Bay team told TorrentFreak that one of the advantages of the transition to a “magnet site” is that it requires relatively little bandwidth to host a proxy site. This is needed, because The Pirate Bay is currently blocked in several countries, and more are bound to follow in the months to come.

Without torrents, the Pirate Bay also becomes extremely portable which makes it possible for people to download a personal backup. As we said before, such a copy would easily fit on a thumb drive. Pirate Bay user “allisfine” was intrigued by this idea and decided to find out how small a copy of the torrents site would be.

“I did a complete snapshot of ALL the Pirate Bay torrents, in case somebody wants to close it or something similarly crazy,” he told TorrentFreak.

Using this script, “allisfine” managed to copy the title, id, file size, seeds, leechers and magnet links of 1,643,194 torrents. Comments were not copied to keep the files as small as possible, and the end result is a full copy of all magnet links on The Pirate Bay in a 90 megabytes file, 164 megabytes unzipped.

There is some confusion as to whether the 1,643,194 torrents are indeed a full copy of the site, as The Pirate Bay itself lists 4,199,832 torrents in the footer link on its site. However, the latter stats apply to the number of torrents that are available on several public trackers, The Pirate Bay itself only hosts a fraction of those.

With the release of the copy everyone can now download a personal backup of The Pirate Bay in a few minutes. Although searching the copy isn’t as convenient as using The Pirate Bay itself, there is little doubt that someone else will soon come up with another script that solves this problem.

Recent history has shown that when a site is threatened with shutdown, or censored, the Internet is very quick to come up with a workaround. And with thousands of backups of The Pirate Bay floating around, it will be very hard at this point to get rid of the famous torrent site.

What’s perhaps even more striking is that the greatest arch rival of a billion dollar entertainment industry is nothing more than 164 megabytes of text. Something to think about.


I don't think the government entities targeting filesharing sites realized how adaptable the internet is. With this file spreading around the internet and backups in private hands, there's no longer a single target for governments to sue. If anything, these SOPA/PIPA/ACTA attempts are driving internet users to innovate into methods that are even more difficult to track and regulate.
   Profile |  

CaptainChewbacca
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 12:31pm 

Browncoat Wookiee


Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Posts: 15715
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.
   Profile |  

TronPaul
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 01:09pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-12-05 01:12pm
Posts: 194
CaptainChewbacca wrote:

I read those articles as well and for this one I'm a bit skeptical. The part that seems weakest about a distributed system like this is peer discovery, which they mention.
Quote:
One thing that could theoretically cause issues, is the capability for starting users to find new peers. To be on the safe side the Tribler team is still looking for people who want to act as so called bootstraptribler peers. These users will act as superpeers, who distribute lists of active downloaders.

Reading the cached version of the wiki, their peer discovery starts with known peers (saved on install). This is dangerous as litigators can go after these known peers or connect to these peers themselves and log peers looking for certain files (like they do now with bittorrent). The only benefit I really see from this is making it easier to start your own filesharing/tribler network by sharing your own custom peer list to friends while all of you are not on the normal tribler network or peer list.
   Profile |  

Skgoa
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 01:59pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Posts: 1388
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless
With magnet links, DHT, peer discovery, etc., it's practically impossible to shut down a filesharing network. But that doesn't mean individual users are safe. We are lucky that the countries that put an effort into copyright protection are not the same countries as those that put an effort into internet censorship. As long as you communicate with someone without hiding yourself, they can get you. And I bet they will turn to going after the supplyers even more than now. They decided to focus on the websites because they think that they just have to make it hard enough to get pirated material and people won't bother put in the effort but IMHO it will only continue to get easier.
Unfortunately, the anonymity networks we have right now are either limited by bandwith (e.g. TOR) or are limited by only enabling secure communication with people who have chosen to be on that network. (e.g. l2p, freenet) Mass adoption of TOR would be a great thing, because it leads to a mass increase in bandwidth, but the first filesharers to switch will/would be the ones who take up the most bandwidth.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 03:36pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Are we being glad piracy is an ever-growing industry now? Or are we so stupid we think something being impossible to achieve will prevent any draconian laws to try?
   Profile |  

Drooling Iguana
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 03:57pm 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2003-05-13 01:07am
Posts: 4974
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Stark wrote:
Are we being glad piracy is an ever-growing industry now? Or are we so stupid we think something being impossible to achieve will prevent any draconian laws to try?

The former. Often the only way to obtain works that the rights-holder neglects to release legitimately is through piracy, and those works would be in danger of being lost forever if piracy were ever stamped out. A certain amount of piracy is necessary for the preservation of our culture.

Besides that, efforts to stop piracy ultimately boil down to restricting the flow of information to approved content (since the whole idea behind anti-piracy systems is that certain pieces of information, i.e. copyrighted works, should not be communicated.) As long as the pirate networks remain in place it's impossible to curtail free speech completely.
   Profile |  

Block
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 04:14pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2007-08-06 02:36pm
Posts: 1961
So that I'm clear, you're saying if someone chooses not to release a work, it's a good thing for pirates to steal it from them because everything anyone creates belongs to the world?
   Profile |  

weemadando
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 04:29pm 

SMAKIBBFB


Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Posts: 19195
Iguana, you realise that will never happen right? That showing there's an audience who will pirate is still not the same as an audience that will purchase that obscure, unreleased content?

The big media companies within political clout are there to make money and any line items that don't give them seven figure returns on a balance sheet aren't going to happen. If that makes you feel better about pirating, go right ahead. But you're just being the excuse that they will always use.

Last edited by weemadando on 2012-02-09 04:30pm, edited 1 time in total.
   Profile |  

Mr Bean
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 04:29pm 

Lord of Irony


Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am
Posts: 20668
Block wrote:
So that I'm clear, you're saying if someone chooses not to release a work, it's a good thing for pirates to steal it from them because everything anyone creates belongs to the world?

If you chose not to re-release a work you mean. If you air something on national TV once, like say the Star Wars Christmas special, were it not for piracy, future generations would not know how to celebrate Wookie Life day.
   Profile |  

Skgoa
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 07:24pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Posts: 1388
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless
I would have chosen F1 race broadcasts as an example. I would even pay for dvd box sets but nobody is offering them. Actually, most live tv isn't available to the public after it aired.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 07:29pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
So? You don't have a right to buy something if the owners don't want to sell it. Being a crybaby with entitlement issues does not justify piracy.

And sorry, all TEH TORRONTZ being 'unstoppable' means is that the attempts of politicians and lobbyists to stop it will continue to negatively impact legitimate users and those uninvolved. In a guerilla war you're not supposed to piss off ordinary people, guys.
   Profile |  

evilsoup
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 07:38pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-04-01 11:41am
Posts: 793
Location: G-D SAVE THE QUEEN
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.
   Profile |  

Mr Bean
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 07:43pm 

Lord of Irony


Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am
Posts: 20668
Besides this is again copy of a copy situation. It's not the same thing as you refusing to sell me your dog so I steal it. Doctor Who fans for example are ecstatic when some new copy turns up of some lost episode because the BBC was short sighted (several times in different years). And besides which we already reached the point several years ago when it became easier to Pirate then purchase the industry changed it's practices in order to chase the new revenue stream. If you think a bit torrent that can not be legislated away or shut down will do anything but prompted them to speed up their electronic distribution methods your ignoring history.
   Profile |  

Gandalf
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 07:44pm 

SD.net White Wizard


Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Posts: 12623
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia
evilsoup wrote:
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.


Unless of course they release their work at a later date.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 08:01pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
evilsoup wrote:
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.


Are you for serious? You're saying end-users determine what is fair for rights holders? What if the rights holders are in the middle of a strategic plan to create profit for their shareholders?

Nevermind; if you don't get what you want, you'll pirate it. Lets hold all rights holders at the point of a gun and WONDER WHY THEY DON'T LISTEN TO YOU. :roll: The best part is that piracy - your tool to encourage rights holders to do what you want - is one of the most important reasons why they won't.

Lamest justification ever. Can't pirates just admit what they do is wrong and move on? Why the need to be white knight pirates fighting for freedom?
   Profile |  

Formless
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 10:12pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2008-11-10 09:59pm
Posts: 3201
Location: the beginning and end of the Present
evilsoup wrote:
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.

Must I point out the well known fact that most bands are already forced to go on tour to make a profit? And most writers aren't J.K. Rowling, they are people who hold day jobs while waiting for a big break with one of the publishers. Not that I like the shambling swamp monster that copyright has become (see: the rest of this post) but I think this argument misses the real flaws with copyright vs piracy.

To quote article 1, section 8 clause 8 AKA the copyright clause of the United States: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So no, at least in the US profit was not the original purpose of copyright. Encouraging innovation was, and the theory (re: delusion) in the US has always been that money inspires innovation. If it was all about money, why is it an insult to call a writer a hack? Because artists who get obsessed with making money rarely pay enough attention to the quality of their art (hence the delusional quality of the money-->innovation belief).

Of course, intent of a law does not predict how it will actually be used. This whole copyright idea originated (in Britain) to keep printing shops from pirating works and making writers go bankrupt. Even then, piracy was an industry. But with copyright, the printing business never went away; in fact new information technologies meant analogous businesses could exist for music, film, and finally software. They just changed tactics-- besides the time honored tradition of one sided contracts, why not obtain/claim copyrights for the company itself? Then the people with the ability to actually make copies can (again) take the artist, writer, or innovator out of the picture money wise, all while using the legitimate problem of pirates to claim otherwise unearned legitimacy for the media corporations.

As long as you pirate, the copyright holding media companies will use you as an excuse, and they have the political engines on their side. Artists are screwed either way.
   Profile |  

Baffalo
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 10:32pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Stark wrote:
evilsoup wrote:
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.


Are you for serious? You're saying end-users determine what is fair for rights holders? What if the rights holders are in the middle of a strategic plan to create profit for their shareholders?

Nevermind; if you don't get what you want, you'll pirate it. Lets hold all rights holders at the point of a gun and WONDER WHY THEY DON'T LISTEN TO YOU. :roll: The best part is that piracy - your tool to encourage rights holders to do what you want - is one of the most important reasons why they won't.

Lamest justification ever. Can't pirates just admit what they do is wrong and move on? Why the need to be white knight pirates fighting for freedom?


You mean like Disney's plan to release its classics every ten years or so, instead of every week? Yeah, it's a pain in the ass if your kid isn't born at just the right time, but then it's a matter of "Well shit. I'll either have to buy a copy off the internet or wait for them to release it again." The reasoning behind the limited releases is simple: you remind the public "Remember our classic stories? They're back for you!" to encourage buying them, offering shit like "Digitally remastered (again) on DVD or Blue Ray (so you can see where someone drew a tiny dick on Bambi or something)." It lets Disney milk these titles for years after they'd be forgotten.

However, suppose I want a copy of Birth of the Federation, a classic game that I enjoy playing. It's been out of print for over a decade, and the company that made it, Microprose, went under. That means there are no more copies of the game being made. There never will be either, because while CBS might own the rights to Star Trek, Microprose owned the rights to the particular title. So suppose I wanted to play this classic game? I'd either have to find a copy (which are NOT cheap) or download a copy. Should I download a copy and not pay CBS because the original copy is gone? Or should I track down a copy and spend a fortune when no money is going to the rightholder anyway?

At some point the copyright holder looses the right to their own product simply due to the nature of the product. There was a case a few years ago of Aqua singing their song "I'm a Barbie Girl" (I read Bathroom Readers which is where I remember the case from), and Mattel sued Aqua for copyright infringement by using the name Barbie. Aqua won because Barbie no longer refers to simply a brand. It refers to something that we now picture in our heads when we say it: tall, skinny blonde who wears pink and has a crotchless boyfriend. It's product saturation that has become part of pop culture. Same with Star Trek, Star Wars and numerous other movies and music. If I said "May the Force be with you", people know instantly where it's from and what it means.

There are such things as the audience's rights. The problem is, where they brush up against the corporation's perceived rights gets hazy. That's why Fair Use is a touchy subject, because it can imply that a person is knowingly using something copy-written, but isn't deliberately trying to harm the corporation's sales. It's a touchy subject, and with companies like the RIAA and MPAA taking on everyone, it's easy to see why many attribute their harming them to being like a white knight championing freedom.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 10:37pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Don't try to muddy the waters with lameo 'abandonware' internet lawyering.

Let me give you a counter example. If you want to use someone's IP (say a statistical tool, or some branded analysis program) and they don't have a partner delivering it in your region, shoudl your company simply go photocopy some of the questionnaires? Should they just steal it and use it without licencing, because licencing is too darn difficult?

If you think 'today's episode of Doctor Who' is equivalent to 'the word barbie in cultural context after 70 years', you are a fucking moron.
   Profile |  

Bakustra
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 11:02pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
Copyright is less about money, and about control. The power to copy is the power to control the distribution of a creative work. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether I use the only remaining master copy of my book/movie/single you love for a cushion, you're still violating copyright if you make a copy of it and distribute it. Morally, this may or may not be acceptable to you, but don't pretend that it isn't a violation- even the vast majority of abandonware still has a copyright holder, it's just a company that can't be fucked to do much more than send C&Ds to Home of the Underdogs every so often.

So it doesn't really matter whether it's for-profit or not, it's about maintaining control of a public work- else I could get a copy of Walden for free from my local bookstore, since it's in the public domain and therefore not salable for profit- oh, wait, it is sold for profit, but you can distribute the entire text for free if you like (and want to eat the costs), because the control is in the hands of the public as a whole.
   Profile |  

Baffalo
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 01:59am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Stark wrote:
Don't try to muddy the waters with lameo 'abandonware' internet lawyering.


'Abandonware' is a real phenomina because it happens. If you want to ignore it, be my guest. Technically, since the copyright was never revoked, it's copyright infringement, but it's infringement where they're not supporting the product and aren't receiving money anyway, so there's no point in pursuing the infringement. Therefor, while it is illegal, it's the same as old laws still on the books but aren't enforced. They're there, but no one gives a flying fuck. You can use that to justify your position, but the company is saying that because the work has been discontinued, it's kinda in the public domain. If it reemerges, then yes, they might try to resell it or continue support again, but if it's in low numbers, no one cares. It would cost more to pursue infringement than they'd gain.

Quote:
Let me give you a counter example. If you want to use someone's IP (say a statistical tool, or some branded analysis program) and they don't have a partner delivering it in your region, shoudl your company simply go photocopy some of the questionnaires? Should they just steal it and use it without licencing, because licencing is too darn difficult?


That's not the same thing in this case and you know it. In both cases it's copyright infringement, but in my case, it's for a product that the company no longer cares about and isn't going to pursue. However, should they find out about the infringement in your case, they are seeing their money being taken because it's a product they're still supporting. Therefor, they are actually losing money and would see a fiscal gain in pursuing legal action to stop the infringement. Don't go assuming that because both fall into the same legal definitions that it's therefore the exact same case, otherwise any theft of any kind would need to be prosecuted equally, whether it's a $50,000 car or a $1 soda.

Quote:
If you think 'today's episode of Doctor Who' is equivalent to 'the word barbie in cultural context after 70 years', you are a fucking moron.


I guess I'm a fucking moron because guess what? Dr. Who and Barbie are similar in this regard! Both are cultural icons with modern counterparts. It's not the same as Edgar Allen Poe or Shakespear because they're icons with nothing new coming out (what with being dead and all). Dr. Who and Barbie are valuable for two reasons: the originals are worth money still, and both are cultural icons. Dr. Who originals are worth money in that they're now made onto DVDs that let people relive their childhood memories of the original classics, and the original masters are worth money because of their rarity. Original barbies are worth money because of their rarity. You can't just go out and buy a brand new 1963 Barbie Doll. Now yes, you're going to point out that the BBC makes money off the original Dr. Who episodes because they remake them, but it's because of their iconic status! It's not the same as going out and saying "I want a copy of Arthur Godfrey and Friends" because there's no market for them except among a very, very low number that just isn't worth the investment of trying to mass market.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 02:42am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Wait, so if I ripped off someone's IP in the corporate arena when they hadn't done anything with it for a while, you think that's ok?

Are you fucking retarded? IP is a fucking asset, you moron. Companies (especially companies in the tech space) have vaults full of patents and copyrights and other IP, and this appears on their balance sheet... and you're saying they don't REALLY own it if YOU PERSONALLY don't think they're using it?

Seriously, when did property rights become about what YOU wanted, and not what the owner wanted? :roll:

PROTIP retard, I compared a specific example of media (and a very new one with broad monetisation and licencing happening right now) to a fucking WORD that has been co-opted by culture. If you are seriously equating them, you're a fucking idiot.

Do you know why Adobe tried to stop people using 'photoshop' as a verb? Because of this very phenomena! As Bakustra says, to retain rights you must exercise them, and if you want to continue to own a trademark you need to make sure it is used in the sense you own it and isn't diluted into regular use, or you'll lose it. This is in no way comparable to pirating some TV show just because you couldn't find it at the shop.
   Profile |  

Baffalo
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 04:14am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Stark wrote:
Wait, so if I ripped off someone's IP in the corporate arena when they hadn't done anything with it for a while, you think that's ok?
Again, you're confusing my words here and it's getting annoying. I'm saying that if it's still a valuable commodity that you are actively using to make money or you are holding an asset worth money for future development, then yes, you have every right to it and should protect your rights to it. However, there is a world of difference between a valuable IP not being used until the company wants to develop it and a game that's been discontinued for 15 years and whose company is gone.

Quote:
Are you fucking retarded? IP is a fucking asset, you moron. Companies (especially companies in the tech space) have vaults full of patents and copyrights and other IP, and this appears on their balance sheet... and you're saying they don't REALLY own it if YOU PERSONALLY don't think they're using it?
Fuck fuck fuckity fuck there I think we're even on the fucks. Now, I am NOT saying that just because a company hasn't used it, it automatically falls into the public domain. What I AM saying is that if you know, for certainty, that a product will never be used again, and you have a use for it for no monetary gain, then it should be no problem. Are you going to sit here and say that Windows 3.1's source code should be locked in a vault for the rest of eternity just because Microsoft owns it? What if a professor wanted to use it to show how early OS worked? Microsoft doesn't earn a dime for it anymore and never will.

Quote:
Seriously, when did property rights become about what YOU wanted, and not what the owner wanted?
When the owner stopped giving a flying fuck and gave up on it.

Quote:
PROTIP retard, I compared a specific example of media (and a very new one with broad monetisation and licencing happening right now) to a fucking WORD that has been co-opted by culture. If you are seriously equating them, you're a fucking idiot.
Is "Fucking Idiot" your favorite word? It's really annoying. As far as your specific example of media, you're missing the point! I was showing how they're claiming that the product's name itself gives them permission to control the culture that uses it. In no way shape or form was I claiming that the word was copyright infringement, but it was treated that way.

Quote:
Do you know why Adobe tried to stop people using 'photoshop' as a verb? Because of this very phenomena! As Bakustra says, to retain rights you must exercise them, and if you want to continue to own a trademark you need to make sure it is used in the sense you own it and isn't diluted into regular use, or you'll lose it. This is in no way comparable to pirating some TV show just because you couldn't find it at the shop.
Are you serious? Think about why that's stupid for a moment... when someone says "Hold on while I google it" do you think an executive at Google freaks out? Having your name out there so that it's so common people automatically know of it IS A GOOD THING! I heard the expression "You could be selling five dollar bills for a nickel but unless they know about it, it's not worth a thing". Culture is something that changes constantly, but being able to, even for the briefest time, have people saying your name and automatically know what your product is NEVER HURTS!

I'm not saying the companies don't have rights, but they must also realize they have limits without becoming ridiculous to the point of insanity. Your definition of rights seems to have even daring to say the names of companies worthy of a lawsuit and jailtime. So if I said Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Walmart, Sony or Viacom, I'm now going to jail and never seeing the light of day again.
   Profile |  

Questor
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 04:42am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-07-17 06:27pm
Posts: 1600
Location: Landover
Re: googling it.

I would have every belief that they would get a little annoyed. In fact, I would be very surprised if there weren't very specific policies at Google about how the company name is used. They just need to ask Bayer or B.F.Goodrich for an example of why this is important.

I know Xerox, Hoover, and TiVO DO freak out about this, and would be very surprised if Google doesn't as well.
   Profile |  

Lagmonster
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 08:15am 

Master Control Program


Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Posts: 6966
Location: Ottawa, Canada
evilsoup wrote:
Isn't the point of copyright to allow artists to make a profit off their work? If they aren't willing to sell copies, I don't really see how one can object to piracy - the creator isn't losing anything materially.

When people say things like this, I start wondering if they were taught the Golden Rule as children.

Let's say Timmy writes a diary. For whatever reason, doesn't really matter why, he made copies of it for some pals. Timmy didn't give you a copy, again for whatever reason, but Georgie is willing to make you a copy of his copy. If you aren't a dick, you will say "No thanks, because Timmy didn't say I could have it, and I'm grown up enough to respect other people's wishes". Just like that, and of your own free fucking will. You don't have to know what you can and cannot do - you only have to know when you're being a dick.
   Profile |  

Faqa
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 10:29am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2004-06-02 09:32am
Posts: 1340
Except that I'll wager that in cases that evilsoup is thinking of, we do pretty much know why Timmy wouldn't give you a copy - he can't be fucked to just now. Maybe later, if it's not too hard. Whenever he gets around to it. And it's not personal to you - the friends he gave it to just happened to be the closest people. Also, Timmy knows you'd like a copy. But, you know, whatever, he'll get around to it whenever. Maybe. And it might not even be the same diary, but some version copied by Bob, who has bad handwriting, and lives 30 miles further away than Georgie.

In that case, I find it quite a bit harder to condemn taking up Georgie on his offer. Yes, Timmy still has the right to not make you a copy of the diary - but he's treating you fairly shabbily to begin with.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 1 of 3
 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

It is currently 2014-04-20 07:25am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Lolpah and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group