I've been patiently waiting for the uprising. When the public, whether off or on the net, realizes that the current copyright laws are unconstitutional, heads should roll.
While I was pirating my favorite TV show*, I paid attention to the locations of the peers that were part of the swarm. I would guestimate there was less than 1% of them originating from the US. Almost all of my fellow pirates were from other countries, countries that are blocked from watching them any other way.
Yes, I have attempted to get my weekly fix the legal way and in every instance, my country wasn't authorized. Now, to be honest, they'll probably be broadcast on my local cable network sometime before 2020, but that's beside the point. I am more than willing to pay to get my TV fix here in the Philippines, but I'm not willing to wait until someone else says it's okay to broadcast them where I live or even sell DVDs of them.
The *AAs are targeting the wrong people. There actually are gangs of thieving** copyright fiends who make something like a 2% profit and they're untouchable.
Just my 2 cents.
* I'm American and I started watching this show when I still lived in the US. Why does being in a different country prohibit me from even paying?
** Copyright infringement != theft, regardless of the idiots that say so.
I think I now understand why Google pursued Chromium. It's the least patented tech so far (except maybe by them with the wicked stepdaughter known as Chrome).
One day, while trying to download the wrong thing, I ended up getting a thoroughly corrupted copy of the latest version of "The Karate Kid". I don't remember the name of the file, but it wasn't what I was looking for in the first place (I was actually looking for something anime for my son since that's his thing).
I'm in the Philippines and my ISP at the time was Subictel. They received an e-mail message from the MPAA, which they forwarded to me. Along with all the stupid condescending stuff they wrote, they pointed me to places where I could legally buy the movie. Guess what?
I can't buy anything from even one of 20 places they had on the list. If I really want that movie (and I don't), I can only get it by 1) scouring every mall in the Philippines, hoping to find a copy (at the US price, by the way) or 2) by illegally downloading it.
So, someone please tell me again that the MPAA wants my money and I'll let you know when I can breathe again after a very large bout of side-splitting, blood-curling laughter.
I used to work for a telemarketing company that specialized in newspaper subscriptions. There are so many cancelled subscriptions every month, it's surprising they can even stay in business.
The offers are ridiculous. For example, they may include a separate Sunday edition for free with a regular subscription or they may include a regular subscription along with a Sunday edition. They claim these as separate numbers when they're really the same. 79,000? More likely to be 39,000 or less. My bet is way less for the online edition.
You'd be surprised at how many people subscribe to newspapers for the "coupon incentive". That really doesn't exist the same way online.
You're all too late. Captain Jean Luc Picard already successfully argued that Lt. Commander Data has rights as a person. And that was in the ummm.. oh wait...
Google's changes to the algorithms are going to be more difficult than many expect. That are a lot of multi-author content sites out there and not all of them are spammy. Every multi-author blog can be considered a blog farm and in the same way, each can be called a content farm. The quality of each one depends on who's in charge of checking the content. And then again, low quality doesn't mean no value.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the leftists hanging out around here are, or in the world for that matter. Every retarded bill that's passed in the US filters out to the developing countries (like where I live) because of the strings attached to things like "financial aid".
As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
I moved away from the US in 2006, cutting almost all ties. We have cable TV here, but I never watch it. My wife, a Filipino by birth, watches the Filipino dramas every day with it because there isn't any other reliable source. Of course, it's cheaper than cable TV in the US. Less than $20 a month (although I don't know the exact amount due to the conversion rate).
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
I think you're reading something into the discussion that isn't there. There is no one here saying that copyright in itself is wrong and shouldn't exist.
The problem is that the original intent of copyright has been twisted into something it was never designed to do. Copyrights were established as short-term methods to get the authors paid for that work and then to encourage them to create more.
Copyright was never intended to be a royalty system and that's what the entertainment industries have managed to do with it. By doing so, they deprive the public the ability to build on that work.
I have a book in storage that was written in 1939. According to the copyright law as it now stands, I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and give it to someone else. I'm not allowed to use substantial portions of it to write a related novel. The author is dead, for Pete's sake. His family isn't making any money off the book because it's been out of print for decades. Still, if I did either of those things and his heirs found out about it, they could sue me for violating his copyright.
This is what's wrong with the copyright law and no argument about theft vs. copyright infringement is going to make a difference if the law is only going to get more draconian as time passes.
For those who argue about copyright infringement without reading what the copyright act actually says. It is defined as infringement in the act itself, so this is not some made up point or any attempt to be disingenuous.
So, regardless of what the dictionary says, the actual law says what it is. Not so in the case of theft. There is no "copyright theft" law.
I obtain a lot of content without infringing on copyrights, but I also obtain a lot of content while infringing on copyrights (supposedly). Because I live in the Philippines (although I'm a US citizen), many sites in the US that sell content are either blocking the country or the IP range or both. There is a great deal of content I can only get from file-sharing sites, even though I'm willing to pay for it.
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.
Re: Re: Re: Harmed? I'm not harmed by rich artists. I'm made happier
Because buying that stuff from Amazon and iTunes can't be accomplished everywhere.
Unconstitutional
I've been patiently waiting for the uprising. When the public, whether off or on the net, realizes that the current copyright laws are unconstitutional, heads should roll.
What Piracy?
While I was pirating my favorite TV show*, I paid attention to the locations of the peers that were part of the swarm. I would guestimate there was less than 1% of them originating from the US. Almost all of my fellow pirates were from other countries, countries that are blocked from watching them any other way.
Yes, I have attempted to get my weekly fix the legal way and in every instance, my country wasn't authorized. Now, to be honest, they'll probably be broadcast on my local cable network sometime before 2020, but that's beside the point. I am more than willing to pay to get my TV fix here in the Philippines, but I'm not willing to wait until someone else says it's okay to broadcast them where I live or even sell DVDs of them.
The *AAs are targeting the wrong people. There actually are gangs of thieving** copyright fiends who make something like a 2% profit and they're untouchable.
Just my 2 cents.
* I'm American and I started watching this show when I still lived in the US. Why does being in a different country prohibit me from even paying?
** Copyright infringement != theft, regardless of the idiots that say so.
OSS
I think I now understand why Google pursued Chromium. It's the least patented tech so far (except maybe by them with the wicked stepdaughter known as Chrome).
Re: Re:
Do a search for DVDFab.
This is MY Story too!
One day, while trying to download the wrong thing, I ended up getting a thoroughly corrupted copy of the latest version of "The Karate Kid". I don't remember the name of the file, but it wasn't what I was looking for in the first place (I was actually looking for something anime for my son since that's his thing).
I'm in the Philippines and my ISP at the time was Subictel. They received an e-mail message from the MPAA, which they forwarded to me. Along with all the stupid condescending stuff they wrote, they pointed me to places where I could legally buy the movie. Guess what?
I can't buy anything from even one of 20 places they had on the list. If I really want that movie (and I don't), I can only get it by 1) scouring every mall in the Philippines, hoping to find a copy (at the US price, by the way) or 2) by illegally downloading it.
So, someone please tell me again that the MPAA wants my money and I'll let you know when I can breathe again after a very large bout of side-splitting, blood-curling laughter.
CwF + RtB
I'm sold.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm
How do you determine a foreign site? By a TLD? Please explain.
The very mechanism being screwed with is the one they're using to determine what site is situated where. Their efforts are wasted before they begin.
Re: The myth they need to test
I guess some people just don't get it when you mention "jump the shark".
Flashbacks
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike, you are wrong on this one
Are you an idiot?
Don't believe the numbers
I used to work for a telemarketing company that specialized in newspaper subscriptions. There are so many cancelled subscriptions every month, it's surprising they can even stay in business.
The offers are ridiculous. For example, they may include a separate Sunday edition for free with a regular subscription or they may include a regular subscription along with a Sunday edition. They claim these as separate numbers when they're really the same. 79,000? More likely to be 39,000 or less. My bet is way less for the online edition.
You'd be surprised at how many people subscribe to newspapers for the "coupon incentive". That really doesn't exist the same way online.
Personhood
You're all too late. Captain Jean Luc Picard already successfully argued that Lt. Commander Data has rights as a person. And that was in the ummm.. oh wait...
All blog farms are content farms
Google's changes to the algorithms are going to be more difficult than many expect. That are a lot of multi-author content sites out there and not all of them are spammy. Every multi-author blog can be considered a blog farm and in the same way, each can be called a content farm. The quality of each one depends on who's in charge of checking the content. And then again, low quality doesn't mean no value.
How about a huge belly laugh?
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid the leftists hanging out around here are, or in the world for that matter. Every retarded bill that's passed in the US filters out to the developing countries (like where I live) because of the strings attached to things like "financial aid".
As your constitutional rights get voted out of existence, don't say you weren't warned by sites like this. I do not care what you think about infringement cases against the moneychangers and the gatekeepers. The only infringement I care about are the infringements against the Bill of Rights. And who is protecting them? It certainly isn't the US government at this point.
Cable TV in the Philippines
I moved away from the US in 2006, cutting almost all ties. We have cable TV here, but I never watch it. My wife, a Filipino by birth, watches the Filipino dramas every day with it because there isn't any other reliable source. Of course, it's cheaper than cable TV in the US. Less than $20 a month (although I don't know the exact amount due to the conversion rate).
The only American TV I get is via the Asian versions of HBO, Cinemax, etc. and a local provider called "Solar" which seems to be 3 or 4 weeks in showing current specific popular TV series.
I find getting TV shows to be a lot easier via torrents - even if the same shows appear through other avenues because things like recurring brownouts prevent me from being able to see them using traditional methods.
If it wasn't for the wife, the cable never would have been installed.
Re: Some questions
I think you're reading something into the discussion that isn't there. There is no one here saying that copyright in itself is wrong and shouldn't exist.
The problem is that the original intent of copyright has been twisted into something it was never designed to do. Copyrights were established as short-term methods to get the authors paid for that work and then to encourage them to create more.
Copyright was never intended to be a royalty system and that's what the entertainment industries have managed to do with it. By doing so, they deprive the public the ability to build on that work.
I have a book in storage that was written in 1939. According to the copyright law as it now stands, I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and give it to someone else. I'm not allowed to use substantial portions of it to write a related novel. The author is dead, for Pete's sake. His family isn't making any money off the book because it's been out of print for decades. Still, if I did either of those things and his heirs found out about it, they could sue me for violating his copyright.
This is what's wrong with the copyright law and no argument about theft vs. copyright infringement is going to make a difference if the law is only going to get more draconian as time passes.
I call dumbass
For those who argue about copyright infringement without reading what the copyright act actually says. It is defined as infringement in the act itself, so this is not some made up point or any attempt to be disingenuous.
So, regardless of what the dictionary says, the actual law says what it is. Not so in the case of theft. There is no "copyright theft" law.
Re:
It's not why I moved out of the US, but it's the reason I won't move back.
Just give me my stuff!
I obtain a lot of content without infringing on copyrights, but I also obtain a lot of content while infringing on copyrights (supposedly). Because I live in the Philippines (although I'm a US citizen), many sites in the US that sell content are either blocking the country or the IP range or both. There is a great deal of content I can only get from file-sharing sites, even though I'm willing to pay for it.
Someone please explain to me how I'm trampling on rights. While you're at it, please explain to me how downloading only (not uploading) is considered copyright infringement.