yes please, I'll have a beer with mine as well ;)
lmao... so you get a letter from some upstart legal firm who tell you that unless you cough up ?1,000 they are going to take you to court for downloading "Fisting Phil, Rimming Roger Vol III", you know that people think along the lines of "where there's smoke there's fire" and that mud sticks... so rather than go the public route of defending yourself (given limited finances/time compared the infinite funds/time of the legal firm) and trying to prove your innocence you just cave and pay the money.
Thats not extortion? they are banking on you settling, they don't care whether you are guilty ot not, whether the evidence would stand up in court they just hope that the thought of going to trial and spending all the money/time is too much and you'd rather just cough up a smaller amount.
Scum, the lot of 'em.
I was hoping it was armed British Paras who did stints of theatre tours prior to going off to Helmand.
If I create a torrent for a file I can either specify how many "bits" the download will be made up of or more commonly I'll let the client decide for me based upon filesze.
So lets say we have a 700MB movie made up of 1024 bits, a client will try and download those bits from seeds/peers in the swarm, it won't start at bit 1 then 2, 3, 4 and so on it will download bits at random from whoever it gets connected to based upon what you need to complete the file and what they are offering. You could be at 99.9% with only 1 bit remaining and until that bit falls into place you have a pile of garbage taking up space on your hard drive.
If I never get that last bit but continue to sshare the other 1023 bits am I infringing? I cannot give anyone the whole file.
oh dear, what you are describing is theft, you have taken something and the original owner no longer ahs it. This is completely different to infringment where I take a COPY of something leaving the original in the hands of its owner.
Please try and not get the two things "Stealing" and "Infringement" mixed up, it does nothing for your arguement.
They'll only block it for the proles, Inner Party members will still have access.
You either didn't read the article properly or don't grasp the concept of fair use.
oh... and we should know by now with people who wish to ramp IP laws...
"Do as I say not as I do", worked for Sarkozy!
Once the shiny disc is no more the walls should start to crumble. The current cost of downloads seem to have some parity to the cost of a track on a physical object.
No physical object = no parity.
IMHO anyway.
Bollocks... now I've spilt the bloody cup down my shirt! ggrrrr..
f*ck man... you just made me inhale my coffee!
errr.... nope!
Until people are forced to go about their business naked and have cavity searches every 30 minutes we will never win the war on terror!
Exactly... which is why the best place to detonate a bomb isn't on the airplane.
"addition product with offeruning the broadcaster any more money"
Should read, "additional product without offering the broadcaster any more money".
*apologies... too much coffee.
nope... just because something possibly could happen doesn't mean it will.
I don't see any relevance in your aguing that they wish to sue TW over streaming content because somneone else on wifi might be able to view the content by accessing an improperly secured router or access point. Given that TW wish to monetise their offering I'd imagine that they will secure the stream to a device in one way or another, it's going to an iPad remember, nothing to say it isn't tied to teh iTunes account.
To me this is simply a money grab on the part of the broadcaster, someone who has paid once for the priviledge to air their content has found a way to monetise it again and offer it as an addition product with offeruning the broadcaster any more money... poor 'ickle content manufacturer, nasty mean TW.
Sooo... although the actual story "Broadcaster to sue TW for allowing streaming of their content+ads" is real and worth discussing, you just want to hijack the post to attack Mike?
Nice ;)
Well at least you can get to read all his posts and see what he believes all kept nice and neat in his Profile, opposed to cowards like you who can throw out any old garbage day in day out without having to be held accountable...
Do you think that the majority of the readers take many contributions by ACs seriously? Some are worth reading, others... meh!
mmmm... sounds a lot like the average techdirt AC!
Re: Math
No Mikes maths haven't failed...
"they point out that it appears the pharma industry and those seeking greater protectionism appear to be overestimating the actual cost of drug development by $1.265 billion"
The reports shows that as some form of average amount.