They are closing in! Anyone suggest any other good sites for free downloading of music. btjunkie proclaimed itself the world's biggest.
Printable View
They are closing in! Anyone suggest any other good sites for free downloading of music. btjunkie proclaimed itself the world's biggest.
I have used thepiratebay for years. I know they have also been fighting the US Government for a long ass time.
Governments should not police the net.
That's cause you guys want to be able to steal...
Stealing is wrong...online and offline..would you steal from a store?
Cool ... so let pedos and rapists run wild?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Silver
Yay anarchy
BTW - The Pirate Bay is on the run (again).
As of Feb 01 they moved their url from http://thepiratebay.org/ to http://thepiratebay.se/
The Pirate Bay is a massive profit making company. Don't get caught up into thinking they some sort of freedom idealists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
I'm just sayin.....
Fuck the quality is shit on those sites anyways - either the tracks don't work or they are corrupt, or its fake files. Either way I am not going to jail for stealing anal porn from Brazzers. memberships only for me.
Ahh.....The George Bush argument 'either with us or with the terrorists'.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/53...637be17159.jpg
Well when someone says that "governments shouldn't police the internet", them it's not a with us or with them, it's a clearly silly statement as there are various degrees of crime. Your point is actually more ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by timxxx
Propero, Prospero, Prospero...Feeling puckish, are we? Lol
Blimey tim
Thanks tim and Seanchai. The trouble now with the pirate bay is hen you tryin to download something it takes you directly to Limewire who have been defunct for about 18 months.
So do tell...which government do you think should be policing the internet? And how would you rationalise the situation in which laws made in one country affect people in another, who have no right or method to challenge or dispute those laws, by dint of not having a vote in the country in which they were made? How do you suggest that the obvious democratic deficit in that be rectified? Or do you think that's just all right, to fuck with democracy anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Excellent point....and one which Seanchai - for all his liberal leanings - doesn't seem to have considered. Unfortunately too many short-sighted people more concerned with increasing their already large revenues by trying to have government enact laws with far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
Why not make a few extra bucks today so that we can trade in the MBZ and buy that VEYRON but fuck the next generation since we won't be here, right!?
Both silly and purile arguments and overly personalised, which pretty much under-mines your points.
I don't have an answer on exactly how it should be done but the current laws aren't working and the suggested ones aren't the answer. I believe there are already international copyright laws in place, all they need to do is close the loopholes which were created in a different time and era and for a different purpose.
Those that are muddling copyright with freedoms and rights, have a very different agenda.
Neither argument is silly or puerile; on the contrary, both are very much part of legitimate political debate right now. As for being personal, they were legitimate questions posed in response to a statement that you made, which invited them. Your response, however, shows your usual level of arrogance.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Democratic rights become very important when people's freedom is impinged upon by laws made in another state, and no amount of condescension on your part is going to change that.
Yet what rights when criminals are stealing copyright under the guise of freedom of speach? Let me turn the question on you, how would you deal with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
You percieve me as being arrogant because I'm strongly opinionated and have something to protect and stand-up for and not just a pipedream of an ideal that has no grounds in reality.
Like I said before.......work on the IP protection at source. The answer is with technology not with legislation. This damn society is sick with a welfare mentality and looking to the fucking government to solve all problems! If the government could solve crime why the fuck are guys still sticking up gas stations and getting away with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
I have never condoned using freedom of speech to steal copyright. However I think, as you well know, that a free internet is the ideal, and we have to find a way for people to make a living with that. Free television has been normal for decades, after all. The internet is just another broadcast medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
I don't perceive you as arrogant because you are opinionated, I perceive you as arrogant because you are presumptuous and condescending. I have no problems with your opinions, though I may disagree with them.
But you are right, you do have something to protect--your self-interest.
Television is free? In the UK you pay an annual license fee and then extra for premium outlets and in the USA practically all TV needs to be on a subscription service. The free television is very poor quality and anybody who "steals" the better product can be prosecuted. Your analogy for how the internet should run is correct but in support of free internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
We already pay for internet, we pay ISP's to allow us access to the internet - at different speeds (again at a premium) so how is that free?
Absolutely I need to protect my self-interest, which supports more than myself. If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons? I'm only condescending and presumptuous when I know I'm completely right. :)
:praying:Quote:
Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream
Of course. How else can you blackmail a politician? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Advertising-model television is free. The UK licence fee only goes to support the BBC. UK viewers also have a wide range of Freeview channels. Have you been so long outside Yorkshire you had forgetten? I'm sorry US television is crap unless you pay subscription...too bad. Refuse to pay Murdoch and things will get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
We do indeed pay ISPs and that is one very important place where revenue for content should be sourced. At the moment they are selling something they don't pay for.
Regarding your inference that I support freedom for ulterior motives, you need have no concern; I can say with hand on heart that I have no copyrighted material belonging to you, other than some from when I did actually have a subscription to one of your sites. (Which won't be renewed.) However, your imputation of dishonesty on my part, rather than engaging in proper debate, is something that is not a surprise.
As for you being completely right...not so far. As for you being arrogant...case absolutely proven.
... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.
I have two words: private tracker. Personally I have no sympathy for the recording or movie industry. They make billions of dollars. I'm sorry you lost a few mil lol.
Many file sharing and torrent sites are going underground. They won't show up on random internet searches. Good luck finding the right hole to dig, mole men.
The interwebz just is no fun anymore.
Who remembers department and convenience stores before closed circuit security eye-in-the-sky cams??
The good ol' days. Past tense.
The only millions he has lost are in his imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxqt28
The web giveth and the web taketh away :Bowdown:
Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. </rant> lol
...like I said earlier and in another thread the solution is technology-based but they are too lazy and greedy to pursue that with the creators of the various file formats. It's not just the big studios but companies like Grooby too. It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers (which incidentally is perfectly acceptable to them) rather than invest in making their product secure.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxqt28
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymJj9T0Ppp.../DobbMoney.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream
Too right,that ship has already sailed,this is a fight they CAN'T win.All the huffing and puffing & name calling is not going to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Sorry, you have a problem with logic. Yes if you receive broadcast television in the UK you have to pay a fee that goes entirely to the BBC. You can watch as many of the other channels as you like for free, other than the Murdoch ones of course, which...I wouldn't watch anyway.
Oh, my geography is just fine thanks. So is my history.
You said "If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons?" in other words, you think my argument for a free internet comes from reasons of self-interest. You stop short of accusing me of thievery or intent thereto, but let's not imagine I am quite so naive, hmm?
That's a good analysis. However, it's more than just trying to gouge selling physical media; they want to establish a new revenue stream through the internet, but the problem they have is that the market price for their product, via download, is zero. That is of course the consequence of the internet and free market forces. What the studios want to do is what the record companies tried to do, which is charge a price for downloading their product which is roughly the same as what the customer would pay if he or she did buy a physical product. This, they say, is to protect the existing distribution network, which is of course a lie, because what they want to do is cut out the middlemen and take all the money for themselves. But because their product has zero real market value, they can't. So their solution is to attempt to force legislation to curtail the free market. This has never worked in the past and it won't work now. :shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by jaxqt28
What is funny is that they do not see how many enemies they are making, by following this line, amongst people in their target market, as is manifest even here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream
I've never paid a lobbyist and I don't have the means to build out own file format which could take millions. I do however, use the law to it's full extent when applicable, use existing software to make it as difficult as possible to stop piracy, hire individuals to remove as much stolen content and make it has difficult as possible to find our stuff. If it's driven underground as much of it is, then that's the right direction.
You'd be an idiot not to use all of those means in protecting your business and for us, it's working.
Your logic is flawed - you stated TV is free, it isn't you pay for it! You could not watch those free channels if you had not already paid. True or false?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
You want free internet because you don't want to pay for it, that's not altuistic, I never stated you were going to steal it or anything such.
That model works when there is an artist account (basically the Itunes model) but while there are free options available which are set up to steal and profit from those same artists work then a lot of people are going to take that option who may have bought it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxqt28
It's amazing that all of the supporters of the "free for all internet" like to vilify the studios because "they make billions of dollars" but refuse to do the same to the websites set up to steal and profit from that studio's work and who haven't had to pay a cent towads that production.
You should have a choice whether to buy a product. If you can't afford it, or don't think it's worth the ticket price, then vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Stealing it because a company "makes billions" is justifying your own criminal behavior. Don't cry if you get caught.
That is a non-sequitur, and no, I will not let you away with it. In the UK, the only channel you pay towards is the BBC, via the Licence Fee. All other channels work by an advertising revenue model or a subscription revenue model. If I watch advertising-based television like STV, for example, or C4 or C5, they get no money from me via the Licence Fee, thus I am watching their content for free. Q.E.D.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Free internet is like advertising-based television in this way: we pay by being exposed to advertising, which is sold. Content, which is required to encourage us to watch the channel, is paid for by the channel, not by us; in the end it is paid by the advertisers, who add the price to their products, so, if I buy that product, I will pay a proportion of the cost of the television channel. But I don't have to buy the product.
This is the way forward for the Internet, and it will inevitably happen, because there is no way that using legislation to deny a free market as large as this is going to result in anything other than a huge black economy, which is in no-one's interest. I believe the internet should be free so that everyone can access it, because I think that this will be, in the long term, the most useful, and ultimately, the most profitable path.
What has to happen, however, is that content producers must get a share of the advertising revenue that is being generated, which at present they do not, and that is unfair. Unfortunately the short-sightedness of some traditional content producers has caused them to target the end-user instead of using their legal muscle to arrive at a deal with the internet-based companies, which is something they actually could achieve.
I certainly don't want to pay directly for the Internet, but I see nothing wrong in that, as long as the content providers are getting their share of the advertising revenue that a free internet generates, which is a huge economy.
Sticking your head in the sand has an unfortunate consequence...
You can include me out of that one, chum. I want to see a free internet because it is a logical and profitable way forward. Content providers should pay for the content they provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
good another pirate site goes down ..