Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Amazon wants to build a trio of biospheres in downtown Seattle
The two groups contacted the websites' hosting providers to take them offline. Names of the affected sites was not released because the organizations want to deter P2P users from finding them elsewhere if they pop up under new domains.
"New sites are popping up, but we take these down faster and faster so they can't gain an audience," Tim Kuik, BREIN's director, said in a statement. "Our goal is to limit the availability of illegal sites so people rather use legal platforms. BREIN doesn’t publish any names because some sites relocate and start over elsewhere." The MPAA did not release a comment at all.
Last month, the two groups shut down 29 file-sharing websites hosted in the US. BREIN has been quite successful in using other anti-piracy groups such as the MPAA as a way to extend its reach beyond Dutch borders.
User Comments: 62
Got something to say? Post a comment-
Valuable enough to steal? It's so not worth my time that I wouldn't walk out the door to rent the damn thing. I wouldn't even walk next door and ask my neighbors for district 9 none the less pay for it at the lowest of prices. 3 clicks away? Maybe I'll watch it then. See, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch something if I'm only going to turn it off.Then why download it if you're only going to turn it off?
Wait a Minute! I know the answer to that. So you can come annoy us with some boorish, infantile post about how slick you are by doing so...!
No need to respond, I've answered my own question.
-
yRaz said:
captaincranky said: Then why download it if you're only going to turn it off?Wait a Minute! I know the answer to that. So you can come annoy us with some boorish, infantile post about how slick you are by doing so...!
No need to respond, I've answered my own question.
Curiosity
I guess you're right, I over did it. I've been in an argumentative mood lately.
-
so the only money lost is that of a lost salepoint is they no money was lost,
That one speaks for itself. ^
patent laws are abused to the point where they have lost their original purpose, to protect the creator. Patents are mainly used for large corporations to sue each other now.i see, now the patent laws are worthless.
Dumb example, our rights are being taken away everyday.See, Microsoft did not really come into my house and beat up my wife and kids...
It's called a boycott. I have a zune pass and a netflix account so I get this stuff close to free anywayGreat! do that, just don't steal .(directed at those who are obviously)
man you really hated district 9 huh?
Valuable enough to steal? It's so not worth my time that I wouldn't walk out the door to rent the damn thingAgain! You, I, everyone stealing, and defending theft, are afforded every opportunity to not buy it if you thinks its not worth it
.....TomSea must be unconscious or something
-
Curiosity
I guess your right, i over did it. I've been in an argumentative mood lately.
Let's attribute it to, "cabin fever", shall we?
I have to say though, "Distric 9" was the perfect example of a movie that the MPAA should have paid people to watch, not the other way around.
.....TomSea must be unconscious or something Yeah, where is old Tom when you need him the most, my fingers are getting tired.
(Update): As of 22 minutes ago, tom was over in the Sandy Bridge CPU thread. I too find it incomprehensible that he doesn't want a part of this gem.
-
yRaz said:
I think most of it should be free anyway. Yes, I hated district 9. It is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of something I don't want to pay for.
about the type-o. That post was very hard to edit because of the way it was formatted.
I have mixed feelings on movies. Music, however, should be free.
-
Music, however, should be free.Well no, they even paid the bands that played at Woodstock.
Besides, music is free. It's just the free music doesn't heed you're beckon call. So, the hard copy shouldn't be free, you should be happy with hearing what you want to hear, but when they want you to hear it.
-
Captaincranky said:
I have to say though, "Distric 9" was the perfect example of a movie that the MPAA should have paid people to watch, not the other way around.
You got that right. Man, that was a bad film...90 odd minutes of my life i'll never get back.
Ahem! back to the topic....Errr yeah, i agree
-
I have mixed feelings on movies. Music, however, should be free.
I swear to god I will never understand the mindset that rationalizes that "music should be free"
why? seriously help me understand this.
It is a product like anything else. It has commercial value,entertainment value, etc. its what some people do for a living. How on Gods green earth do you make it work in your mind that that this particular product should be free?
let me ask you something. I don't know if you are old enough to be working for a living or not, however, what if a group arbitrarily decided what you do for a living, what you produce by your labor and creativity should be free?...confiscated at anothers whim? such as you think theirs should be?
-
I actually thought that paid digital downloads had taken away the biggest ,(legitimate), complaint that music buyers had. That would be, "there's only one track on the whole album worth listening to". Problem solved, you pay your 99 cents for that track, and voila, problem solved!
-
I actually thought that paid digital downloads had taken away the biggest ,(legitimate), complaint that music buyers had. That would be, "there's only one track on the whole album worth listening to". Problem solved, you pay your 99 cents for that track, and voila, problem solved!
Yeah, so did I...they all said that, then showed their true colors when that wasn't good enough.
-
@Captain,
I have to actually agree there, it does provide an excellent solution for that argument. I don't really think the cost is a problem really, considering the cost of an album in the grand scheme of things.
-
It actually chastens the artists whose single tracks are being downloaded also, since they're not getting royalties of the entire album, just one song. Maybe they'll try harder the next time. Buy some better amps, snort some better coke, something.
-
Or just make more of an effort?
-
Since you full well know, that you'll never effect any change in attitude, why don't we call it, "masochistic".
That's actually what I intended. I better lay down.
-
The way that it should be looked at is this.
It is only harmful/loss of income IF i was actually going to buy it from some legal purchase means.
If i wasn't able to obtain it illegally and for free, I wouldn't have it anyways.
I won't feel guilty since no end person looses anything on an unlimited supply.
Simple.
-
i seriously think, that if we pay the internet bills.. anything on the internet is pretty much yours..you are getting what you pay for.. now.. there are lots of ppl who really dont know how to use torrent websites thats why they just check their mail and Facebook..i think if you download it.. for personal use is good.. but if u start making profit for others work.. then that is just shaddy.. unless you share it. and not sell it it.. but it really is tough in these times.. of economic struggles for those who can barely afford a dvd
-
Staffred1776 said:Excuse me, nothing is being stolen. There is no physical copy so the only money lost is that of a lost sale.
Good god, this old tired fallacy/rationalization again? Intellectual property is still property. Why do you think that something is only being stolen if you can hold it in your hand, or kick the tires? That's preposterous. Why do you think patent laws exist?...your excused.
Purely hypothetical: If I had a replicator (ala Star Trek) and somehow replicated a Toyota Camry for myself, would you consider it grand larceny? I find it hard to believe anyone would answer an unequivocal YES to that without at least SOME fine print to their argument.
Perhaps this a bit pedantic, but "stealing" is NOT the proper word. The proper word is "infringing". You don't infringe upon someone's wallet. You steal it. Likewise, you don't steal someone's data, you infringe upon it (unless you actually removed it from their possession, of course).
Infringement is NOT stealing. That is a fact, supported by laws.
Does that make it ok? NO, there's definitely something wrong there. But is it theft as in robbery or embezzlement? Absolutely not.
You (ironically) are the one with the false argument. You are making the case that it is stealing in the first place and it is not. You're just spouting more of the same old rhetocial fear, uncertainty and doubt oozing from every pore of the media. You may be very passionate about copyright infringement and that's great, but you should re-evaluate the mechanics of your arguments otherwise you can't really have a good discussion about it.
-
Purely hypothetical: If I had a replicator (ala Star Trek) and somehow replicated a Toyota Camry for myself, would you consider it grand larceny? I find it hard to believe anyone would answer an unequivocal YES to that without at least SOME fine print to their argument.Assuming you obtained the raw materials for this "conversion" probably not. But you have infringed on Toyota's patents, and their trademark. Accordingly, it would be a felony to operate it, and certainly to redistribute it.Perhaps this a bit pedantic, but "stealing" is NOT the proper word. The proper word is "infringing". You don't infringe upon someone's wallet. You steal it. Likewise, you don't steal someone's data, you infringe upon it (unless you actually removed it from their possession, of course).No, it's actually the height of pedantry, when an attempt is made to float this nonsense past anyone over third grade. This is the inane portion of the program where we argue that "farting" is not the proper word, but rather "flatulence" is.Infringement is NOT stealing. That is a fact, supported by laws."Infringement" is stealing, and it is the name we apply to the mechanism by which theft of trademark, copyright, intellectual property, or patent concept theft occurs, period.
"Infringement", describes those thefts, and it's criminal punishment can easily be at parity with "GTA". You all know what that means, right?
Your post here is nothing more than yet another version of "to-may-to", "to-mah-to", dogma. It is granted, a cut above, "it wasn't worth buying so I downloaded it.
Ya know, at the end of the day, I don't give a hoot who downloads what. What I'd really like, is for them to go off and "infringe" quietly, and quit running their yaps in open forum, displaying just how, slick, and important they think they are. When in actuality, they are only ignorant and mouthy. At the end of the same day, the majority of those running their mouths here, are more than likely the "leeches" of the torrents anyway, not the seeds.
And if you'll forgive me for being a "little pedantic", another word for leech might be "parasite". So, I would say it's not "leeching" from a torrent, it's being a "parsite" at a torrent.
And now Rick, how do you feel about kicking those semantics around for a while?
-
Darkshadoe said:
Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.
-
Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.Yeah well, that's a cute postulation, but "Adblock Plus would get rid of the ads, then how would you justify the infringement?
-
StaffAccordingly, it would be a felony to operate it, and certainly to redistribute it.
Exactly. And for those reasons it would be wrong, but it wouldn't be grand theft in any way, shape or form.
captaincranky said:And now Rick, how do you feel about kicking those semantics around for a while?
I feel just fine kicking around semantics because it *matters* here, much as it does when it comes to law. Distinction of terms counts, because the difference between manslaughter and murder are huge in regards to our laws.
Tell me with a straight face that you'd feel just as bad if you never knew someone made a perfect copy of your car while you were sleeping as you would if they had physically stolen it and you woke up to an empty parking space. You'd be full of s@#$ if you said yes. I know you aren't that stupid and I know most other people aren't.
There's a big difference between stealing a car off a lot and making a perfect duplicate for yourself (impossible of course, but file copying sufficiently mimics such magic).
Whether or not it is wrong to copy media isn't up for debate. Hell yes it is wrong and illegal, but it isn't stealing. It isn't (typically) the same severity as stealing either. That doesn't make it right, but it makes all the difference at the end of the day when you're being prosecuted for the infringement of someone's intellectual property.
Intellectual property "theft" can actually be WORSE than physical theft. When you copy the protected ideas of others (not just talking about music here), distribute it, sell the results etc... The damage can be huge. But the tired old argument of all those crybabies out there (most of which are lying) of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway!" really DOES matter, like it or not.
In a court, intent matters. Loss matters. Many things matter and the depth of that conversation is subverted by people who make this a "stealing is wrong!" debate. Of course stealing is wrong... now can we get discuss copying music again?
-
File sharing is legal in Canada Woop Woop
-
Darkshadoe said:captaincranky said:Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.Yeah well, that's a cure postulation, but "Adblock Plus would get rid of the ads, then how would you justify the infringement?
On the flip side, why should I have to be subject to their ads if I do not illegally download? Why should I have to download a tool to get rid of them wasting my time and bandwidth? The software, music, and movie industries want to nickel and dime the consumer to death by all these fees and licenses, why can't I be just irritating by wanting to be paid for them to display an ad on my monitor? They want all this information like email addresses and other personal data for free, why can't they expect to give something free in return?
Yes i know, this will probably never happen. Its just something to think about. I really could care less what anybody does with their internet. If you illegally download, then shut up and continue on until you get caught. If you don't, then more power to you.
-
Tell me with a straight face that you'd feel just as bad if you never knew someone made a perfect copy of your car while you were sleeping as you would if they had physically stolen it and you woke up to an empty parking space. You'd be full of s@#$ if you said yes. I know you aren't that stupid and I know most other people aren't.This isn't really a fair question, due to context. You're quite correct insofar as you your conclusion, but since the car doesn't represent my "intellectual property", but in fact, physical property. You can't use one, as a comparison for the other. The analog is flawed. That's why we use different nomenclature for different types of theft.
To tap into another hypothetical situation, let's say I wrote a song, you came to my house, got me drunk, and stole the only copy I had, then beat me to the copyright office with it. Should you be charged with 2 crimes, or just 1? If only one, which one?
There's a big difference between stealing a car off a lot and making a perfect duplicate for yourself (impossible of course, but file copying sufficiently mimics such magic).Of course there is, but again the physical property, to intellectual property analog is invalid. Since you're so fond of this line of reasoning, perhaps you might find, "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound", equally fraught with enough doggerel to be entertaining.Whether or not it is wrong to copy media isn't up for debate. Hell yes it is wrong and illegal, but it isn't stealing. It isn't (typically) the same severity as stealing either. That doesn't make it right, but it makes all the difference at the end of the day when you're being prosecuted for the infringement of someone's intellectual property.You're preaching to the choir here. I don't think that the entertainment industry has the right to claim $xxx.xxx.xx losses, when in reality they only suffered $xxx.xx in actual losses. And that's a point for the torrent set, I suppose. But there's the, "it wasn't worth buying so I stole it BS", coming from that side of the bathroom.But the tired old argument of all those crybabies out there (most of which are lying) of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway!" really DOES matter, like it or not.
In a court, intent matters. Loss matters. Many things matter and the depth of that conversation is subverted by people who make this a "stealing is wrong!" debate. Of course stealing is wrong... now can we get discuss copying music again?The RIAA is a bunch of Fascist looney toons who think that every time you need music you've purchased in a different format, for your own purposes, that you should rebuy it!I buy CDs I like, because I like to have them. That said, I don't buy CDs I don't like just to have them. But, I do believe, that hardcore music down loaders, take as much as they can, just because they can. The net result of this is, they just hand the RIAA the ammunition they need to concoct the bizarre numbers regarding, "industry losses", that they need to further influence legislation.
When I was young, we smoked pot, dodged the draft, played hooky from school, and fornicated out of wedlock. That said, we knew it was wrong, and had the good taste to shut up about it, instead of standing on a soapbox and giving socio-pathological rants about it, claiming it was right, justifying it to ourselves, and whichever other juvenile delinquents who were unfortunate to have to listen to it..
And "intent" really doesn't matter that much in court. For example, "I went there to propose marriage, but I caught her in bed with another man, so I killed both of them. I didn't mean it, I just went crazy. How far do you think that would fly in a court of law? Once upon a time in a French Court maybe. But hey, as far as I'm concerned, she wouldn't shave her armpits, so he can keep her. Do you get the analog there? Or maybe I should have said, "she won't shave her armpits, smells like a cow, is flat out ugly, so I'll steal her to put her out of her misery".
One last thought: I was brought up to believe that, "two wrongs don't make a right"! Yet all the BS that comes out of the downloading set, flies directly in the face of that concept. So what do you think Rick, do two wrongs make a right?
-
Some would say no matter how you rationalize it, ''stealing is stealing'' and that is what downloading copyrighted material from torrent sites is, as long as the law exists. Others would say, if these avenues of getting some of these materials didnt exist at all, then everyone will be forced to pay unfair and insanely high prices for any material, great or crap, as long as it's been copyrighted! I do wonder: for those who say it's stealing, some of these same laws make you a criminal whenever you lend your dvd to your girlfriend, or get several music tracks via bluetooth from your colleagues or borrow your friends ps3 disc to finish the offline mode of a game since your disc got scratched, or copy your friends pc game after your computer crashed and your installation disc was no where to be found,as far as you don't ask for permission from the copyright owners.i must say that if you have never been guilty of these or anything similar, i fear you may not be human! Dont you think there's something wrong if you cant do these?? All these also result in lost revenue and according to these laws, more than half of the population may be criminals!this is what filesharing including torrents achieve, just on a larger scale(as long as no form of payment is involved). Agreed, it does get to the point where it's worrisome for those who have a stake in it, but that said,i think some of those who stand on the high moral ground of ''stealing is stealing'' are hypochrites because of reasons stated above. Sometimes, not everything in life is black or white. But one thing is sure: Good products will always sell even in a world where torrents exist and unfairly high prices for materials,especially those not worth it (eg some ps3 games or district 9
), will always promote some form of piracy. If anyone is againt torrents/existence of torrent sites/filesharing because of it's tendency to be used in distributing copyrighted work then there's something wrong cos they may as well be against the computer! In life,somehow there's always a balance and i think this situation isn't any different as efforts on both sides seem to balance each other.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Building a Thin Mini-ITX PC: Small and Silent Performance
-
Metro: Last Light Tested, Benchmarked
-
Xbox One: Entertainment hub first, gaming console second - but can it disrupt TV?
-
Microsoft officially announces Xbox One: here's what we know so far
-
'Supercapacitor' could fully charge your phone in less than 30 seconds
Featured on PC Games
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.