Easily described

Band made funny video to try and stop p2p users of Winny filesharing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny

Quote:
Winny (also known as WinNY) is a Japanese peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program which claims to be loosely inspired by the design principles behind the Freenet network, which makes user identities untraceable. While Freenet was implemented in Java, Winny was implemented as a Windows C++ application

@dag, I see what you're saying, and I erred in using the term "evil", since it's a subjective and meaningless word.

However I don't believe the NSA really, really think they're protecting Americans. I think government always wants more control, sees a way or a moment to grab more, and does. If there's any concept of "protecting" any one citizen, I can't believe it's anything other than some perverted form of the concept (reverse stockholm syndrome?)
As for specific motivations for a government to seek more control over the people within it's borders, I believe objectives such as "stop all file-sharing", "verify census data more accurately", "find out who's not paying taxes", "discover what 'X' does on his day off, and persecute if we don't like it", and so on.

But yeah, not evil, but not working for the citizens either. It boggles my mind that military walking around on foreign soil, and violating personal rights and freedoms just like this NSA crap doesn't strike someone in office as the very reason people fly planes into buildings to begin with. If they really wanted to protect citizens of the country, they could stop pissing off the rest of the world. But that's my idealistic view of reality.

Isn't it more of a torrent indexer than a "file-sharing site"?

I'm about to upload a rare flick to You Tube, Leni Reifenstahl's Das.Blaue.Licht.1932, a rare snoozer procured through free and easy file-sharing.

If her estate cares anything about clearing up the tarnished name of an incredible talent they should be fine with it ~ If not, YouTube sends a shot across the bow and there's no harm or foul, just a friendly reminder to, "Don't Doo Dat!" (Probably some fucking self-hating Nazi or Jew, anyhow....)

Do the same with ANYTHING that has to do with Tallulah Bankhead (last feature film made in 1965), and her estate goes ballistic....PROBABLY because certain people who think lawyers can solve problems waste millions of dollars trying to get their way through intimidation and evil.

The lawyers are their employers are the only ones making out like bandits on copyright laws and the artists matter not: The people who hired the lawyers are the ones who have fucked the artists through contract already!

Fuck em all, when pirating and "illegal" downloads stop on the internet is the day I take up noodling or cribbage and convert my computer case into a nest for opossum!

Wait until 3D printers have the resolution to print it, then download the schematic from your favourite file sharing service.

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

Furthermore, the opposite correlations have been shown to exist for at least the first case, and the second seems almost completely decoupled.

I am not asserting that the RI/MPAA does not waste their money alienating their customers. Only that when they do that they don't have an evidence based economic reason for doing so.

I object to the industries "common sense" observation that they "must" be losing money ( when they are making the same or better money than prevailing trends would project at less expense ) being taken as a given without the slightest concern for facts.

If you search for "Could the industry as a whole be gaining" that's near the beginning of the details I'm referring to. Lessig cuts them a lot of slack, but the basic facts he lays out don't conform to the industry narrative I am disputing.

Full disclosure: my annual purchasing of music and movies went from ~$100 to ~$500 the year I started file sharing, and then from ~$500 to $0 the year the MPAA served me with papers, and I stopped file sharing. I'm biased, but I have been following this whole thing very closely, and I know they made money off me sharing, and they lost money by stopping me.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^heropsycho:

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free.

Okay, I keep hearing this " big problem, people don't buy ". Can either of you back this up?

The facts the last time I checked were exactly the opposite, file sharing correlates with more purchasing. nobody is loosing money, they are just loosing control.

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated ) I'm calling bullshit, the only problem with intellectual property in "western society" is that the public domain has been raided by infinite copyright terms.

>> ^radx:

Remember who was behind MegaUpload: Kim Schmitz aka Kimble. I support file sharing, but that guy got rich by selling stolen content and customer data. Look up all the shit he pulled in Germany.
Good fucking riddance, I'd say.


Maybe that guy is a bastard that doesn't mean that we have to destroy the whole idea of the internet. This is an attack on the many not the few and the most talented of the many are fighting back.

If I had to choose between the FBI and Anonymous I could give plenty of reasons why the entire FBI should be disbanded.

Remember who was behind MegaUpload: Kim Schmitz aka Kimble. I support file sharing, but that guy got rich by selling stolen content and customer data. Look up all the shit he pulled in Germany.

Good fucking riddance, I'd say.

With a name like chaosEngine , I would have assumed you knew why people do things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^spoco2:
Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:
a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.
It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.
He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.
He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA

Fair enough, as I said, I didn't get that far, but thank you for suffering through it and explaining it.
That said, I'm still not sure I buy that explanation. It pre-supposes that being given "insane powers" is the end game for these corporations. It all seems a little too "bond villain" to me (ya know, let's spend billions on a nuclear shark so we can extort the world for a 1% profit).
I could very well be wrong, but it still sets off my bullshit radar.

>> ^spoco2:


Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:
a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.
It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.
He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.
He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA


Fair enough, as I said, I didn't get that far, but thank you for suffering through it and explaining it.

That said, I'm still not sure I buy that explanation. It pre-supposes that being given "insane powers" is the end game for these corporations. It all seems a little too "bond villain" to me (ya know, let's spend billions on a nuclear shark so we can extort the world for a 1% profit).

I could very well be wrong, but it still sets off my bullshit radar.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.
Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.
Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?" I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.
Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly
Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.
a good question to ask climate change deniers.


Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:

a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.

It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.

He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.

He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.

Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.

Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?"* I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.

Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly

Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.

* a good question to ask climate change deniers.

>> ^kymbos:

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...
While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites
Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?
While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I know what I'm doing is wrong, and I know that I should be providing those who make the entertainment money. And as I said, I do with movies... TV not so much, because it's that thing that I don't have much interest in re-watching shows. (Except Deadwood, we bought all of that on DVD, because you can watch that over and over and get things you missed in the beautiful cussing the first time ) So, there, yes I have a problem. A show like Fringe. I think that's an awesome show, looks like it doesn't have much life left in it, could do with the support, but what can I do realistically? I can't add to its ratings at all as I'm not a family with one of the rating boxes (one of my friends was for a while, was fun to intentionally watch 'good' tv to try to boost ratings ), if I bought the show on DVD it'd really be a symbolic gesture on my part where I'd end up with a bunch of DVDs I'll never watch.

Now, if they made the remaining episodes of it available worldwide for a small subscription fee (and hey, open up the back catalogue too so people can catch up), then I'd stop torrenting it and use the legal downloads (assuming they aren't DRM'd all up the butt).

So yes, I know that torrenting isn't 'right', but I try to do the right thing by the work I like. But I have issues with me doing it, and would like to be provided another avenue to do it legally where I can support the creators I like (without having to pay for crap I don't like). @Ryjkyj seems to believe he's actually in the right, and that's what gets my goat. People who seem to think you're only producing something if you can hold it or touch it. That's such utter rubbish.

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...

While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites

Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?

While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.