I have no patience for liars or the intentionally dishonest, so I'd say I've got reason to be annoyed. It's a mild irritation at most though, verging on exasperation, so if that's really an 'accomplishment' for someone, I'd say they've got bigger problems than me being annoyed by dishonesty.
I like how in an effort to fight spam posts, you resort to spam posts. Report all his comments if you feel like it, but enough with the freakin' comments about how other people don't do the same.
There's also the part where you're just flat out wrong. Blue's been here for how many years? Clearly reporting his comments isn't stopping him from posting, or even notably slowing them down, so your tactic isn't doing squat other than adding yet more spam, making the problem worse, not better.
Why would he bother? He's banking on the targets not knowing better, for the scam his knowledge of the laws needs only be good enough that he can throw together a sufficiently 'official' looking threat letter.
When you never actually expect or want to take your 'case' to court where it can he challenged, you can pretty much make it up as you go along.
What an amazingly well thought out and presented comment. Really, your various points, all exhaustively cited and backed up by other sources, and your downright eloquently written arguments certainly convinced me of the rightness of your point, bravo.
This line again? Do you ever get tired of being dishonest, or is it a hobby for you?
Infringement does not equal theft, this is not a difficult concept. Copying does not equal taking. Likewise, as I pointed out in our last little chat, you do not actually want it to be treated the same in any sense but the emotional.
But hey, if that's how you think, by all means charge someone who infringes on a copyright with theft, see how well that goes for you.
The 'copyright enforcement' discussed most often on this site is to legitimate 'enforcement' or 'protection' of copyright as attacking everyone that walks past your house(while leaving the back door both unlocked and open) is to 'protecting' yourself from home invaders.
Ludicrously inaccurate, harmful to tons of innocent parties, and if it does catch someone actually guilty of the crime in question, it's only purely by luck.
If those trying to 'protect' their 'holy' copyrights showed even the slightest bit of restraint, honesty or accuracy, they wouldn't get mentioned on TD so often. That they show none of the above however means that they do end up being discussed fairly regularly. Got a problem with it, blame them, not TD.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the creation of a reasonable law designed to specifically provide law enforcement the ability to obtain, in real-time or near real-time, basic subscriber information (BSI) from telecommunications providers.
Here's the thing. Unless I'm mistaken, or the law is drastically different in Canada than it is in the US on matters like this...
They can already do this.
They absolutely can get the data they want from telecom providers, the only thing that it requires is that they make a case before a judge that they need it, get a warrant for it, and present the warrant to the telecom provider(s).
If they have sufficient evidence that they actually need such data, they absolutely can get access to it, so what they're really whining about is the fact that they actually have to provide proof before they can go browsing through the data that they actually have a need, rather than just a desire, to do so.
That's easy, they vote for whatever party is currently in charge, no matter their political affiliations.
Your problem is you're using the regular, 'normal' definition of 'non-partisan', that of 'balanced and not biased towards or against a particular party', whereas the government is clearly using another definition, that of 'In favor of the party in charge, no matter which it is'.
If I had to guess, you likely mixed up the main game and the 'Expansion pass' they're offering. The main game has a release date of May 19, 2015, while the expansion pass has a release date matching what you noted.
The lack of DRM actually likely decreased the availability of the game on pirate sites, if their previous game is any indication.
There is an interesting detail to this story. Like all GOG.com games, the version of The Witcher 2 released in 2011 shipped without DRM – pirating it would have been little more complex than sharing the file. However, it was also published in the US as a boxed, on-disc game by Atari. This version shipped with SecuROM copy protection. “Most people in the gaming industry were convinced that the first version of the game to be pirated would be the GOG version (as it was DRM-free), while in the end it was the retail version, which shipped with DRM,” notes GOG.com’s Managing Director, Guillaume Rambourg.
But why, then, would the DRM-free version of The Witcher 2 be ignored by pirates, when it was an open target? Marcin Iwinski, CEO of CD Projekt Red, responded:
"You would have to ask someone at the pirate group which cracked it, but I have to admit it was a big surprise. We were expecting to see the GOG.com version pirated right after it was released, as it was a real no-brainer. Practically anyone could have downloaded it from GOG.com (and we offered a pre-download option) and released it on the illegal sites right away, but this did not happen. My guess is, that releasing an unprotected game is not the real deal, you have to crack it to gain respect and be able to write, “cracked by XYZ.” How would “not cracked by XYZ, as there was nothing to crack” sound? A bit silly, wouldn’t it? The illegal scene is pretty much about the game and the glory: who will be the first to deliver the game, who is the best and smartest cracker. The DRM-free version at GOG.com didn’t fit this too well."
It’s perverse, but perhaps the fun of file sharing – especially when done for status and bragging rights rather than serious financial gain – is in frustrating efforts by content owners to stop it. Within two hours of its release the DRM was cracked. Meanwhile, GOG.com’s DRM-free version hid in plain sight, too tempting and easy a target.
I didn't make any such claim. Just that they would, like you say, have made some money from piracy.
You didn't no, but the first comment in this thread did make that claim, and they're hardly the first. It's annoying correcting the same idiotic claim over and over again, and some of the irritation may have seemed directed at you, but it wasn't, it was aimed at the boneheaded line that's been repeated and debunked I don't know how many times by now.
Not ALL their money, but not NONE either.
True, but like I noted above, with a company their size, that's pretty much a given and expected. There's just too much to keep track of to ensure that none of those that use their services are doing so in illegal or dodgy ways, the best that can be reasonably expected is that they would cut off those that they discover or are informed are involved in illegal acts.
The ads offered by shady companies that pay pittance, even compared to 'standard' ad rates? The ads that Google wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, not only because the pay out would be ludicrously low, but because of the legal hassle it would cause if they were involved with them?
A company doesn't grow to be Google's size by acting like idiots, and they would have to be incredibly stupid to want to have anything to do with ads hosted on sites that regularly attract legal attention from governments around the world(and in fact as I understand it they are incredibly quick to pull ads from sites that even might not be 100% legal). Why open themselves up to that risk, for basically pennies, when they could steer clear of the mess entirely?
However, assume for the moment that Google was indeed stupid enough to be involved with offering ad services to torrent sites and the like. I can pretty much guarantee that the payouts from every last site of that sort would be a drop in the bucket compared to their other sources of income, which makes the absurd claim of 'Google makes all their money off of piracy' about as accurate as saying that the government makes all of it's money off of illegal drug deals.
Does some of the money come from an illegal source? Quite probably, build a system(government or otherwise) large enough and it's pretty much ensured to happen, but the vast majority of it comes from legitimate sources, so claiming that the minority source is the only, or even 'just' the main source isn't even close to being accurate.
You comment is reported because it's wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, and people don't feel like explaining for the hundredth time why it's a wrong, especially to someone who wouldn't listen to a thing that was said because you've already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will change it.
Almost, though there's the not so small difference that the phone book chooses what to include, whereas Google just grabs and indexes everything. There's also the tiny difference in scale between a couple thousand entries for one, and billions for the other.
Nailed it. They could have used this to their advantage, offered 'official' approval via a dirt cheap license, and taken advantage of an event that had been going on for several years at this point to connect to their fans and gotten a free PR boost.
Instead they broke out the lawyers, shut the event down and demanded repayment for 'damages', with the result being they end up looking like greedy control freaks.