People who are wrongly accused of making illegal downloads will have to pay a £20 fee to appeal and prove their innocence in a move that has angered consumer groups.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows. (2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
otester wrote:
DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows. (2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[quote user=mac] [quote user=otester]DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.[/quote]
like seeding a torrent?> [/quote]
Yes.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.[/quote]
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows. (2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[/quote]
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
[quote user=Whodareswins] [quote user=otester]DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.[/quote]
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news [/quote]
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows. (2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
Whodareswins wrote:
otester wrote:
DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news
The Digital Economy Act is the law. The article is not wrong.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
The Digital Economy Act is the law. The article is not wrong.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
[quote user=EricManning] The Digital Economy Act is the law. The article is not wrong.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download. [/quote]
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
EricManning wrote:
The Digital Economy Act is the law. The article is not wrong.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
I don't really know what you are talking about. The Act authorizes Ofcom to enforce this, and they have decided to require ISPs to issue warnings based on copyright holder claims, and eventually cut off service.
I'm guessing the behavior they are enforcing is "Secondary Infringement", which applies to anyone who "transmits" unauthorized transfer of a copyrighted work without authorization. It is true, there are also provisions to charge people who make such transfers possible, and those who just leave them available with expectation that someone will copy them. Clearly, the agency has the authority to go after downloaders... the complaints are about other things, such as the need to pay to appeal an accusation.
I don't really know what you are talking about. The Act authorizes Ofcom to enforce this, and they have decided to require ISPs to issue warnings based on copyright holder claims, and eventually cut off service.
I'm guessing the behavior they are enforcing is "Secondary Infringement", which applies to anyone who "transmits" unauthorized transfer of a copyrighted work without authorization. It is true, there are also provisions to charge people who make such transfers possible, and those who just leave them available with expectation that someone will copy them. Clearly, the agency has the authority to go after downloaders... the complaints are about other things, such as the need to pay to appeal an accusation.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=mac]like seeding a torrent?>[/quote]
Yes.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[/quote]
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
[/quote]
.... As an uploader I post a magnet/torrent file which links to the file to be copied. You as the downloader initiate the copying process by clicking on that magnet/torrent link and then copy the linked file to your own pc. I have the original, you are making a copy of that original. It is your direct action which initiates the production of a replica on your machine. Without your direct action no copy would exist on your system. My involvement as the producer of the link is merely to act as a conduit, my actions with regard to your replication of the original material is indirect.
otester wrote:
mac wrote:
like seeding a torrent?>
Yes.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
.... As an uploader I post a magnet/torrent file which links to the file to be copied. You as the downloader initiate the copying process by clicking on that magnet/torrent link and then copy the linked file to your own pc. I have the original, you are making a copy of that original. It is your direct action which initiates the production of a replica on your machine. Without your direct action no copy would exist on your system. My involvement as the producer of the link is merely to act as a conduit, my actions with regard to your replication of the original material is indirect.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=EricManning]Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.[/quote]
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have. [/quote]
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
otester wrote:
EricManning wrote:
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron. [/quote]
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.[/quote]
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality. [/quote]
Nevermind, three more days and then I'm off! w00t!!!
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.[/quote]
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case. [/quote]
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
What you're describing is the push model, and it doesn't relate to the subject wwe're speaking about, which would be described more accurately by the receiver-pull model.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
What you're describing is the push model, and it doesn't relate to the subject wwe're speaking about, which would be described more accurately by the receiver-pull model.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]Receiver would be indirect in this case. [/quote]
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
[/quote]
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Welcome to our world... You said that the sender initiates the transfer. So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating the transfer... and how did they initiate that transfer.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
Welcome to our world... You said that the sender initiates the transfer. So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating the transfer... and how did they initiate that transfer.
Rofl, did Otester just jackiechanwtf Digi's own expanded version of what otester just said? Hilarious. So hilarious it isn't funny for the 90,000th time.
Rofl, did Otester just jackiechanwtf Digi's own expanded version of what otester just said? Hilarious. So hilarious it isn't funny for the 90,000th time.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] and how did they initiate that transfer. [/quote]
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link. 2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker. 3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data. 4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating their transfer...
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
and how did they initiate that transfer.
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link. 2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker. 3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data. 4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating their transfer...
[/quote]
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]and how did they initiate that transfer.[/quote]
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link. 2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker. 3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data. 4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer. [/quote]
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating their transfer...
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
and how did they initiate that transfer.
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link. 2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker. 3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data. 4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.[/quote]
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[/quote]
I think he's confusing torrents for the old directconnect network. "UserA is sending a request to you to download "Big Black Booty Babes VII.avi", do you accept?".
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
I think he's confusing torrents for the old directconnect network. "UserA is sending a request to you to download "Big Black Booty Babes VII.avi", do you accept?".
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.[/quote]
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[/quote]
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] I've never directly actively accepted a request... [/quote]
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
I've never directly actively accepted a request...
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[/quote]
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] I've never directly actively accepted a request... [/quote]
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content. [/quote]
Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
I've never directly actively accepted a request...
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist. [/quote]
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=EricManning]Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.[/quote]
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have. [/quote]
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist. [/quote]
[quote user=otester] [quote user=EdRoberts]Why are we fucked? Because asshole fuckwits like you can't steal other people's shit any more?! What exactly about enforcing the copyright 'rights' of other people OFFENDS you douche-bags soooooo damn much???????[/quote]
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
[/quote]
otester wrote:
EricManning wrote:
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
otester wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
Why are we fucked? Because asshole fuckwits like you can't steal other people's shit any more?! What exactly about enforcing the copyright 'rights' of other people OFFENDS you douche-bags soooooo damn much???????
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist. [/quote]
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material. [/quote]
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying. [/quote]
I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.[/quote] I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
[/quote]
You derped, alright....
You're so full of shit.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=]You're so full of shit.[/quote]
To make an argument you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point. [/quote]
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
otester wrote:
wrote:
You're so full of shit.
To make an argument you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]You're so full of shit.[/quote]
To make an argument you had to dig through my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point. [/quote]
It is what is required to beat simple fucking ideologies into your pea sized brain. A normal man can be allowed one moment of inability to understand, but when it requires a person to be explained the same thing, even more expanded and "right the fuck in front of you" each time, he's not a normal man, he's a fucking moron. This has to be done even way beyond the point of moron, with you. Get the message yet?
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
You're so full of shit.
To make an argument you had to dig through my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
It is what is required to beat simple fucking ideologies into your pea sized brain. A normal man can be allowed one moment of inability to understand, but when it requires a person to be explained the same thing, even more expanded and "right the fuck in front of you" each time, he's not a normal man, he's a fucking moron. This has to be done even way beyond the point of moron, with you. Get the message yet?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit. [/quote]
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
^ So now you're saying the derp you admitted to happening did not, in fact, happen, and that your argument still remains? Let's not forget your entire argument was based on "sending" not "taking", when the word "COPY" in every single paragraph of both you and digi's "debate" (debate in quotes because it's never a real debate with you).
^ So now you're saying the derp you admitted to happening did not, in fact, happen, and that your argument still remains? Let's not forget your entire argument was based on "sending" not "taking", when the word "COPY" in every single paragraph of both you and digi's "debate" (debate in quotes because it's never a real debate with you).
I pirate less games now than I used to. I know for a fact it leads to a sale in some cases because I've bought many games I pirated first. Fuck, some I've had on pre-order anyway and pirated while they fuck about having it out in NA for a week longer than it comes to Europe.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
I pirate less games now than I used to. I know for a fact it leads to a sale in some cases because I've bought many games I pirated first. Fuck, some I've had on pre-order anyway and pirated while they fuck about having it out in NA for a week longer than it comes to Europe.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
[quote user=Matt2k35] I pirate less games now than I used to. I know for a fact it leads to a sale in some cases because I've bought many games I pirated first. Fuck, some I've had on pre-order anyway and pirated while they fuck about having it out in NA for a week longer than it comes to Europe.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward. [/quote]
Matt2k35 wrote:
I pirate less games now than I used to. I know for a fact it leads to a sale in some cases because I've bought many games I pirated first. Fuck, some I've had on pre-order anyway and pirated while they fuck about having it out in NA for a week longer than it comes to Europe.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]. To conclude - you're full of shit.[/quote]
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
[/quote]
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is" They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have." They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case." They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ So now you're saying the derp you admitted to happening did not, in fact, happen, and that your argument still remains? Let's not forget your entire argument was based on "sending" not "taking", when the word "COPY" in every single paragraph of both you and digi's "debate" (debate in quotes because it's never a real debate with you). [/quote]
And then there's this (see above). Otester, you can't even stand by the statements and terms you have repeatedly used in other threads because they contradict you now and show you up to be a woolly-headed fool... and so you claim that they should be ignored because you 'derped'. It was no 'derp', the fact that your entire argument in those other threads is woven around those terms, and is incoherent if those terms are changed, proves this. You're a derpy dimwit.
Thank fuck I'm going on holiday at the end of the week.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
. To conclude - you're full of shit.
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is" They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have." They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case." They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
proofinlife wrote:
^ So now you're saying the derp you admitted to happening did not, in fact, happen, and that your argument still remains? Let's not forget your entire argument was based on "sending" not "taking", when the word "COPY" in every single paragraph of both you and digi's "debate" (debate in quotes because it's never a real debate with you).
And then there's this (see above). Otester, you can't even stand by the statements and terms you have repeatedly used in other threads because they contradict you now and show you up to be a woolly-headed fool... and so you claim that they should be ignored because you 'derped'. It was no 'derp', the fact that your entire argument in those other threads is woven around those terms, and is incoherent if those terms are changed, proves this. You're a derpy dimwit.
Thank fuck I'm going on holiday at the end of the week.
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is" They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have." They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case." They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
[/quote]
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is" They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have." They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case." They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver." They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[quote user=mac] pirating games looks like a pain in the ass tbh. [/quote]
Yeah, last game I pirated was Dead Island and I had to fuck around with versions and getting the right patch (because the cracked and version I got wasn't working) which was a bit of a ball ache. But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother.
mac wrote:
pirating games looks like a pain in the ass tbh.
Yeah, last game I pirated was Dead Island and I had to fuck around with versions and getting the right patch (because the cracked and version I got wasn't working) which was a bit of a ball ache. But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother.
Otester, I don't think anyone on TAN - except maybe Ed and Cadpig - really favors anti-piracy measures.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
Otester, I don't think anyone on TAN - except maybe Ed and Cadpig - really favors anti-piracy measures.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
[quote user=Matt2k35]But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother. [/quote]
Moved house?
[quote user=EricManning] Otester, I don't think anyone on TAN - except maybe Ed and Cadpig - really favors anti-piracy measures.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in. [/quote]
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
Matt2k35 wrote:
But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother.
Moved house?
EricManning wrote:
Otester, I don't think anyone on TAN - except maybe Ed and Cadpig - really favors anti-piracy measures.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
[quote user=otester]We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).[/quote]
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
otester wrote:
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
[/quote]
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[/quote]
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[/quote]
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
[quote user=otester]We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).[/quote]
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
[/quote]
Data retention last time I checked only involves the main url (eg: http://www.google.co.uk/), anything past the last / is considered content and not logged.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'... So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
EricManning wrote:
otester wrote:
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
Data retention last time I checked only involves the main url (eg: http://www.google.co.uk/), anything past the last / is considered content and not logged.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'... So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
I'm not sure how you can expect to get rich from a game without accepting IP. Sounds a bit like hypocrisy.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
I'm not sure how you can expect to get rich from a game without accepting IP. Sounds a bit like hypocrisy.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
[quote user=otester]If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.[/quote]
Well, we can either believe your interpretation of the law, or the people who made the law. They say they are going to fine downloaders, so it seems reasonable they can. You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist. From my straightforward reading of the law, "transferring" unauthorized material seems to be a criminal and civil breach. Possession of an unauthorized copy is also an offense.
Is there some recent successful appeal in which this defense was used?
The Digital Economy Act 2010 has gone through the various judicial reviews and is already law. Everything this article describes is the law.
otester wrote:
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
Well, we can either believe your interpretation of the law, or the people who made the law. They say they are going to fine downloaders, so it seems reasonable they can. You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist. From my straightforward reading of the law, "transferring" unauthorized material seems to be a criminal and civil breach. Possession of an unauthorized copy is also an offense.
Is there some recent successful appeal in which this defense was used?
The Digital Economy Act 2010 has gone through the various judicial reviews and is already law. Everything this article describes is the law.
[quote user=EricManning] I'm not sure how you can expect to get rich from a game without accepting IP. Sounds a bit like hypocrisy.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use. [/quote]
From my POV you need to learn to compete with the free distribution model, make people want to purchase from you, if the price outweighs user friendliness, they will be off to their local P2P/Warez site.
[quote user=EricManning]You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist. [/quote]
According to the wording yes, whether that would stop them or not, we'll just have to wait and see.
EricManning wrote:
I'm not sure how you can expect to get rich from a game without accepting IP. Sounds a bit like hypocrisy.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
From my POV you need to learn to compete with the free distribution model, make people want to purchase from you, if the price outweighs user friendliness, they will be off to their local P2P/Warez site.
EricManning wrote:
You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist.
According to the wording yes, whether that would stop them or not, we'll just have to wait and see.
Yeah, but nah, Play4Free games and suck my cock end. Unless what they have to purchase lasts forever and is a one off payment and DOESN'T cost more than a usual game in the end... nah, fuck that.
Yeah, but nah, Play4Free games and suck my cock end. Unless what they have to purchase lasts forever and is a one off payment and DOESN'T cost more than a usual game in the end... nah, fuck that.
[quote user=Matt2k35] Yeah, but nah, Play4Free games and suck my cock end. [/quote]
do you mean the tip or where the ball sack starts?
[quote] Unless what they have to purchase lasts forever and is a one off payment and DOESN'T cost more than a usual game in the end... nah, fuck that. [/quote]
mass effect 3s multiplayer has this store system that has been making them a ton of cash apparently. basically, for every game you play you earn credits to buy guns, supplies, etc. But the way you get them is by buying a pack, inside the pack is random shit, so you may play 2 to 3 missions and buy a pack that just has junk in it. However, you also have the option of literally buying a pack, and people do this more than often. its like 2-3 dollars to buy, but its as additive as buying trading cards.
Matt2k35 wrote:
Yeah, but nah, Play4Free games and suck my cock end.
do you mean the tip or where the ball sack starts?
wrote:
Unless what they have to purchase lasts forever and is a one off payment and DOESN'T cost more than a usual game in the end... nah, fuck that.
mass effect 3s multiplayer has this store system that has been making them a ton of cash apparently. basically, for every game you play you earn credits to buy guns, supplies, etc. But the way you get them is by buying a pack, inside the pack is random shit, so you may play 2 to 3 missions and buy a pack that just has junk in it. However, you also have the option of literally buying a pack, and people do this more than often. its like 2-3 dollars to buy, but its as additive as buying trading cards.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
[/quote]
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=proofinlife]Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
[/quote]
Otester, do you have any answers, at all? [/quote]
Nothing coherent, and nothing that he'll stand by in a few months if his behaviour in this thread is anything to go by.... lol.
proofinlife wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
Nothing coherent, and nothing that he'll stand by in a few months if his behaviour in this thread is anything to go by.... lol.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er. [/quote]
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er. [/quote]
Could you provide evidence for both these statements? [/quote]
Already did earlier, the oxford dictionary links.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
^ He cannot. All he can provide is command line functions that have absolutely nothing to do with legal litigation. All a legal team needs to proceed with a suit is :
Logs Evidence of Willfullness Illegal files or proof of existence at one point in time on the pirate's hard drive, and/or ISP logs proving the person downloaded said information. Key word: downloaded
If Otester were correct, and downloading was legal, no one would get letters from their ISP threatening court order, and no one would get court letters detailing the suit.
Evidence of will would be easy, they could state that Billy downloaded a torrent from torrentsiteexample.com. All they would need is to see a torrent client on Billy's computer, a .torrent file in the list on the client or on the computer, a copy of the file Billy's computer. Billy initiated the process by using a torrent client to download a .torrent file. Torrent sites or servers have absolutely nothing to do with this key step. It's ALL on Billy's ass here. The Torrent client opens the .torrent file Billy willingly downloaded from the torrent site, asks the user where they want to save it and what what part of the file they want downloaded, and loads the tracker information. The client on Billy's computer initiates the process by opening authentication with the other seeds. Billy is the initiator, no one else is. He chooses the torrent file, he loads the torrent file by telling the file what program to use to open it (or automatically open it as he would have assigned in the past), he chooses where to save it and what parts to download. You don't need to cloud arguments with the server-side commands to see this.
Secondly, this is directly at otester, the COPY command is never initiated, because you cannot COPY from a hard drive to somewhere on the internet. However, someone can "copy" from you by "GETTING" or "FETCHING" the file from your computer, in dummy terms "DOWNLOADING". The server does not initiate the requests, the client does, in all instances, no way around that. You want to talk technical, there you go, technicalities just defeated your argument, again, and again, and again, and again.
^ He cannot. All he can provide is command line functions that have absolutely nothing to do with legal litigation. All a legal team needs to proceed with a suit is :
Logs Evidence of Willfullness Illegal files or proof of existence at one point in time on the pirate's hard drive, and/or ISP logs proving the person downloaded said information. Key word: downloaded
If Otester were correct, and downloading was legal, no one would get letters from their ISP threatening court order, and no one would get court letters detailing the suit.
Evidence of will would be easy, they could state that Billy downloaded a torrent from torrentsiteexample.com. All they would need is to see a torrent client on Billy's computer, a .torrent file in the list on the client or on the computer, a copy of the file Billy's computer. Billy initiated the process by using a torrent client to download a .torrent file. Torrent sites or servers have absolutely nothing to do with this key step. It's ALL on Billy's ass here. The Torrent client opens the .torrent file Billy willingly downloaded from the torrent site, asks the user where they want to save it and what what part of the file they want downloaded, and loads the tracker information. The client on Billy's computer initiates the process by opening authentication with the other seeds. Billy is the initiator, no one else is. He chooses the torrent file, he loads the torrent file by telling the file what program to use to open it (or automatically open it as he would have assigned in the past), he chooses where to save it and what parts to download. You don't need to cloud arguments with the server-side commands to see this.
Secondly, this is directly at otester, the COPY command is never initiated, because you cannot COPY from a hard drive to somewhere on the internet. However, someone can "copy" from you by "GETTING" or "FETCHING" the file from your computer, in dummy terms "DOWNLOADING". The server does not initiate the requests, the client does, in all instances, no way around that. You want to talk technical, there you go, technicalities just defeated your argument, again, and again, and again, and again.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?[/quote]
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't. [/quote]
Literal definitions have absolutely no connection to legal definitions. Until you make that connection you'll use the oxford dictionary like it's relevant proof, and we'll all continue to make your arguments look haphazardly retarded.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
Literal definitions have absolutely no connection to legal definitions. Until you make that connection you'll use the oxford dictionary like it's relevant proof, and we'll all continue to make your arguments look haphazardly retarded.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?[/quote]
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't. [/quote]
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.[/quote]
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously. [/quote]
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
In other thoughts, I'm beginning to think that 4000 pounds he made last year while living with his mammy all went to truly mind altering substances. That's all that could account for that, and his mental shortcomings. I guess, until he posts a picture, we can all assume he got dropped on his head, repeatedly, as a child, and proceeded to take acid in his early 20's while he attempted to get rich off a one-man video game.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
In other thoughts, I'm beginning to think that 4000 pounds he made last year while living with his mammy all went to truly mind altering substances. That's all that could account for that, and his mental shortcomings. I guess, until he posts a picture, we can all assume he got dropped on his head, repeatedly, as a child, and proceeded to take acid in his early 20's while he attempted to get rich off a one-man video game.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.[/quote]
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
[/quote]
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary... :/
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary...
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er." [/quote]
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."[/quote]
The definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
[/quote]
Hey fuckstick, tell me more about how literal definitions and legal definitions are exactly the same and hold up in court together. They don't, so keep dreaming. Laws are not written by the dictionary.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
The definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
Hey fuckstick, tell me more about how literal definitions and legal definitions are exactly the same and hold up in court together. They don't, so keep dreaming. Laws are not written by the dictionary.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=proofinlife]urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
[/quote]
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary... :/ [/quote]
He's a fucking moron. There is no more that needs to be said. He'll never be able to prove he has a sliver of intelligence. He'll just keep repeating dribble from the oxford dictionary like it applies to the current and future topics about legalities. Us half-decently edumacated fellows know the difference.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary...
He's a fucking moron. There is no more that needs to be said. He'll never be able to prove he has a sliver of intelligence. He'll just keep repeating dribble from the oxford dictionary like it applies to the current and future topics about legalities. Us half-decently edumacated fellows know the difference.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."[/quote]
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
[/quote]
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
Sore loser?
Otester, quote where in the link you think you've proved your point.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you [/quote]
If you actually explained anything, then we'd ask you to dumb it down. Unfortunately, it is our job to dumb it down for you. As has been the story for months around here.
Digi won this debate 60 posts ago. The majority of the other 60 was Digi dumbing things down to an uncomfortably stupid level just for you to understand, and you still didn't understand. Can you not see the pattern we're all drawing so vividly clear here? You're mentally fucking damaged.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
you're right, proof.
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you
If you actually explained anything, then we'd ask you to dumb it down. Unfortunately, it is our job to dumb it down for you. As has been the story for months around here.
Digi won this debate 60 posts ago. The majority of the other 60 was Digi dumbing things down to an uncomfortably stupid level just for you to understand, and you still didn't understand. Can you not see the pattern we're all drawing so vividly clear here? You're mentally fucking damaged.
81
| 244 views | www.bbc.co.uk
[/quote]
like seeding a torrent?>
like seeding a torrent?>
[/quote]
Hmm. Are you sure? The 1988 Act states:
17 Infringement of copyright by copying.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
Hmm. Are you sure? The 1988 Act states:
17 Infringement of copyright by copying.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[/quote]
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news
like seeding a torrent?>
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.[/quote]
Hmm. Are you sure? The 1988 Act states:
17 Infringement of copyright by copying.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[/quote]
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
[quote user=Whodareswins] [quote user=otester]DailyFail as usual, downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is.[/quote]
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news
[/quote]
It's been changed.
Original:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165004/Illegal-downloading-Families-illegally-download-music-movies-online-face-court-action-copyright-theft.html
like seeding a torrent?>
Yes.
Hmm. Are you sure? The 1988 Act states:
17 Infringement of copyright by copying.
(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
what you going on about the daily mail the link is bbc news
It's been changed.
Original:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165004/Illegal-downloading-Families-illegally-download-music-movies-online-face-court-action-copyright-theft.html
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
[/quote]
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
Saying it's legal to copy but not host is one of those myths we pirates like to throw around. Some countries may not have very good enforcement of the downloaders, but it's illegal everywhere. Acts like these are just measures to start cracking down on those who download.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
I'm guessing the behavior they are enforcing is "Secondary Infringement", which applies to anyone who "transmits" unauthorized transfer of a copyrighted work without authorization. It is true, there are also provisions to charge people who make such transfers possible, and those who just leave them available with expectation that someone will copy them. Clearly, the agency has the authority to go after downloaders... the complaints are about other things, such as the need to pay to appeal an accusation.
I'm guessing the behavior they are enforcing is "Secondary Infringement", which applies to anyone who "transmits" unauthorized transfer of a copyrighted work without authorization. It is true, there are also provisions to charge people who make such transfers possible, and those who just leave them available with expectation that someone will copy them. Clearly, the agency has the authority to go after downloaders... the complaints are about other things, such as the need to pay to appeal an accusation.
Yes.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The 2002 Act increased the legal penalties for infringement.
[/quote]
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
[/quote]
.... As an uploader I post a magnet/torrent file which links to the file to be copied. You as the downloader initiate the copying process by clicking on that magnet/torrent link and then copy the linked file to your own pc. I have the original, you are making a copy of that original. It is your direct action which initiates the production of a replica on your machine. Without your direct action no copy would exist on your system. My involvement as the producer of the link is merely to act as a conduit, my actions with regard to your replication of the original material is indirect.
Yes.
The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver.
.... As an uploader I post a magnet/torrent file which links to the file to be copied. You as the downloader initiate the copying process by clicking on that magnet/torrent link and then copy the linked file to your own pc. I have the original, you are making a copy of that original. It is your direct action which initiates the production of a replica on your machine. Without your direct action no copy would exist on your system. My involvement as the producer of the link is merely to act as a conduit, my actions with regard to your replication of the original material is indirect.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
[/quote]
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
[/quote]
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
[/quote]
He reminds me of someone else on here...
Nevermind, three more days and then I'm off! w00t!!!
It won't work, Digi. On his side of the table, every argument he loses he has actually won, every contradiction he has ever spouted was was never, ever a contradiction at all, and his definitions of legalities he thinks should be in effect actually are. We call this daydreaming, he calls this reality.
He reminds me of someone else on here...
Nevermind, three more days and then I'm off! w00t!!!
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
[/quote]
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
You live in a fantasy world where you invent your own definitions for practically everything, otester. You're also a moron.
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
I'm serious, truly, we do.
¬_¬
I'm serious, truly, we do.
¬_¬
I'm serious, truly, we do.
¬_¬
[/quote]
2 years actually.
I'm serious, truly, we do.
¬_¬
2 years actually.
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
[/quote]
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
What you're describing is the push model, and it doesn't relate to the subject wwe're speaking about, which would be described more accurately by the receiver-pull model.
At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it.
Receiver would be indirect in this case.
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
What you're describing is the push model, and it doesn't relate to the subject wwe're speaking about, which would be described more accurately by the receiver-pull model.
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
[/quote]
Really? So, how many movies/cds do you have on your hard drive where someone else initiated the transfer, and how did they initiate that transfer to your hard drive?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Welcome to our world... You said that the sender initiates the transfer. So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating the transfer... and how did they initiate that transfer.
Welcome to our world... You said that the sender initiates the transfer. So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating the transfer... and how did they initiate that transfer.
No wonder he doesn't want "indirect" viewing to be a crime.
No wonder he doesn't want "indirect" viewing to be a crime.
[/quote]
2 years actually.
[/quote]
is this an accredited University ?
Juco?
Online?
Crackerjack prize?
2 years actually.
is this an accredited University ?
Juco?
Online?
Crackerjack prize?
So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating their transfer...
[/quote]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM[/video]
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]
and how did they initiate that transfer.
[/quote]
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link.
2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker.
3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data.
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
So, how many movies are there on your pc which exist as a result of a sender initiating their transfer...
and how did they initiate that transfer.
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link.
2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker.
3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data.
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
[/quote]
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]and how did they initiate that transfer.[/quote]
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link.
2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker.
3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data.
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
[/quote]
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
Torrent example...
1. User downloads a torrent file or clicks on magnet link.
2. The client then find peers via DHT/PEX/Tracker.
3. Sends a request to other seeds/peers in the swarm for the data.
4. A seeder or another peer with the requested data chunk(s) will then start uploading the data to the requesting peer.
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[/quote]
I think he's confusing torrents for the old directconnect network. "UserA is sending a request to you to download "Big Black Booty Babes VII.avi", do you accept?".
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
I think he's confusing torrents for the old directconnect network. "UserA is sending a request to you to download "Big Black Booty Babes VII.avi", do you accept?".
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
[/quote]
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] I've never directly actively accepted a request... [/quote]
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
So, the person in receipt of the file - the downloader - initiates the process. Without their direct active involvement in the process no copy could exist on their hard drive. They are the party doing the copying.
I have utorrent running pretty much all the time, and have thousands of files on my PC, I've never directly actively accepted a request...
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
[/quote]
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] I've never directly actively accepted a request... [/quote]
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
[/quote]
Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver.
That's because it's your job, not utorrent's, to determine whether you own the correct license to distribute said content.
Otester, without you initiating the process by sending a request to copy someone else's file, no copy can be made. You keep trying to shift responsibility for the originating action onto someone else. The truth is, without you requesting the file, no copy is made.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
[/quote]
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
[quote user=otester]
"Eric the issue is that you don't understand the definition of taking/theft in regards to IPR, out of the 5 things "you always hear", only the last was partially relevant, regarding the previous 4, nothing was taken, it was copied.
IPR cannot be physically stolen/taken only "infringed" by copying it without authorization"
[/quote]
Also:
[quote user=otester]
"Simply a hold on information vs. physical assets, taking the former, it's is copying, the latter, theft (depriving the owner of the original), the main point I was trying to make"
[/quote]
and:
[quote user=otester] [quote user=] Why are we fucked? Because asshole fuckwits like you can't steal other people's shit any more?! What exactly about enforcing the copyright 'rights' of other people OFFENDS you douche-bags soooooo damn much???????
[/quote]
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
[/quote]
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
"Eric the issue is that you don't understand the definition of taking/theft in regards to IPR, out of the 5 things "you always hear", only the last was partially relevant, regarding the previous 4, nothing was taken, it was copied.
IPR cannot be physically stolen/taken only "infringed" by copying it without authorization"
Also:
"Simply a hold on information vs. physical assets, taking the former, it's is copying, the latter, theft (depriving the owner of the original), the main point I was trying to make"
and:
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
[/quote]
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Without your direct action, without you clicking on a link to download material, no copy can be made on your hard drive. You initiate the process.
[/quote]
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
[/quote]
[quote user=otester] [quote user=EdRoberts]Why are we fucked? Because asshole fuckwits like you can't steal other people's shit any more?! What exactly about enforcing the copyright 'rights' of other people OFFENDS you douche-bags soooooo damn much???????[/quote]
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
[/quote]
One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have.
Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying).
What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist.
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
[/quote]
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/copy?q=copying#copy__6
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/file-sharing?q=file-sharing
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
"Eric the issue is that you don't understand the definition of taking/theft in regards to IPR, out of the 5 things "you always hear", only the last was partially relevant, regarding the previous 4, nothing was taken, it was copied.
IPR cannot be physically stolen/taken only "infringed" by copying it without authorization"
Also:
"Simply a hold on information vs. physical assets, taking the former, it's is copying, the latter, theft (depriving the owner of the original), the main point I was trying to make"
and:
[quote user=otester][quote user=] Why are we fucked? Because asshole fuckwits like you can't steal other people's shit any more?! What exactly about enforcing the copyright 'rights' of other people OFFENDS you douche-bags soooooo damn much???????
[/quote]
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
[/quote]
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
[/quote]
I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
.... What I'm suggesting is that the initiation of the process is a direct action. When you go and download a torrent file or click on a magnet link you are directly responsible for the transfer of materials onto your machine because you are initiating the process. Without your action, without you clicking on the link, no process is started, no copying is initiated. Indirect action seems to lie with the person whose system is sharing. Your request is direct, it involves you clicking on a link to download a copy of the original material.
I may have the legal responsibility to ensure that I have the legal right to share an item, but you also need to ensure that as the originator of the transaction you are legally obtaining the material... and you know you're not when you're downloading because you're not engaged in a financial transaction that involves you purchasing a licence to 'own' the material.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/copy?q=copying#copy__6
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/file-sharing?q=file-sharing
What I find annoying is that in the past you've said things such as this:
"Eric the issue is that you don't understand the definition of taking/theft in regards to IPR, out of the 5 things "you always hear", only the last was partially relevant, regarding the previous 4, nothing was taken, it was copied.
IPR cannot be physically stolen/taken only "infringed" by copying it without authorization"
Also:
"Simply a hold on information vs. physical assets, taking the former, it's is copying, the latter, theft (depriving the owner of the original), the main point I was trying to make"
and:
It's not theft.
It's copying, hence the word, copyright.
Which means you're being intellectually disingenuous now because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.
I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] because in the past you've accepted that file-sharing, or taking a non-physical item, was copying.[/quote]
I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
[/quote]
You derped, alright....
You're so full of shit.
I derped, replace "taking" with "sending".
You derped, alright....
You're so full of shit.
You derped, alright....
You're so full of shit.
[/quote]
And you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments to make an arguement...
You derped, alright....
You're so full of shit.
And you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments to make an arguement...
[quote user=]You're so full of shit.[/quote]
To make an argument you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
[/quote]
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
To make an argument you had to dig through over a year of my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
To make an argument you had to dig through my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
[/quote]
It is what is required to beat simple fucking ideologies into your pea sized brain. A normal man can be allowed one moment of inability to understand, but when it requires a person to be explained the same thing, even more expanded and "right the fuck in front of you" each time, he's not a normal man, he's a fucking moron. This has to be done even way beyond the point of moron, with you. Get the message yet?
To make an argument you had to dig through my previous comments... so I'd say the level of derp is almost equal at this point.
It is what is required to beat simple fucking ideologies into your pea sized brain. A normal man can be allowed one moment of inability to understand, but when it requires a person to be explained the same thing, even more expanded and "right the fuck in front of you" each time, he's not a normal man, he's a fucking moron. This has to be done even way beyond the point of moron, with you. Get the message yet?
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
[/quote]
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
My argument was made early on, and was made because I remembered your previous points, because, hey, I actually take an interest in the opinions of others... I only posted the comments to illustrate, mainly to you, how full of shit you were... and with your intellectually disingenuous response (derp, indeed, ha!), you illustrate further how full of shit you are, and how I was spot on when I described you thusly. To conclude - you're full of shit.
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
[/quote]
But stuff like TV and movies I pirate like mad, mainly TV. Last time I went to the cinema with just me and the missus it cost £30 for tickets, ONE popcorn, ONE coke and ONE nachos in Cineworld. Such a rip off, so fuck going to the cinema. DVD's you are required to watch all that shit prior to getting to the movie. I generally just want to put it on and watch the film. I like the menu's and stuff and the extra scenes, directors commentary... but I'm not willing to pay to have a million piracy warnings shoved in my face telling me pirated copies are poor quality... because my MKV 720p collection says otherwise entirely. That and we don't have a TV aerial, cable/satellite subscription. £120 a year for a TV licence is bullshit and TV sucks... you have to pay more for shit like TiVo to be able to record and watch shit when you want... and that's not transferable to other media. Nope, watching movies and downloaded TV shows on our HTPC, when we want, however we want is the way forward.
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
[/quote]
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is"
They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have."
They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case."
They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ So now you're saying the derp you admitted to happening did not, in fact, happen, and that your argument still remains? Let's not forget your entire argument was based on "sending" not "taking", when the word "COPY" in every single paragraph of both you and digi's "debate" (debate in quotes because it's never a real debate with you).
[/quote]
And then there's this (see above). Otester, you can't even stand by the statements and terms you have repeatedly used in other threads because they contradict you now and show you up to be a woolly-headed fool... and so you claim that they should be ignored because you 'derped'. It was no 'derp', the fact that your entire argument in those other threads is woven around those terms, and is incoherent if those terms are changed, proves this. You're a derpy dimwit.
Thank fuck I'm going on holiday at the end of the week.
If the Oxford dictionary is make believe then well...
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is"
They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have."
They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case."
They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
And then there's this (see above). Otester, you can't even stand by the statements and terms you have repeatedly used in other threads because they contradict you now and show you up to be a woolly-headed fool... and so you claim that they should be ignored because you 'derped'. It was no 'derp', the fact that your entire argument in those other threads is woven around those terms, and is incoherent if those terms are changed, proves this. You're a derpy dimwit.
Thank fuck I'm going on holiday at the end of the week.
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is"
They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have."
They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case."
They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
[/quote]
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfxn8MU7tsQ[/video]
Tell me, how exactly do the definitions provided bolster your argument?
They don't support the statement "downloading copyrighted content without the authorization is not illegal, uploading is"
They don't support the statement "The act of copying/reproducing is initiated by the sender, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "One cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have."
They don't support the statement "At uni I was taught that the sender initiates the transfer, the receiver merely requests it. Receiver would be indirect in this case."
They don't support the statement "The party holding the file is the one that must check whether they are licensed to distribute it, not the receiver."
They don't support the statement "Requesting is an indirect action (direct action is the act of copying). What you are suggesting is that the concept of indirect action does not exist."
The definitions didn't lend any support to your argument, other than some illusory 'win' in your derpy head.
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[/quote]
Yeah, last game I pirated was Dead Island and I had to fuck around with versions and getting the right patch (because the cracked and version I got wasn't working) which was a bit of a ball ache. But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother.
Yeah, last game I pirated was Dead Island and I had to fuck around with versions and getting the right patch (because the cracked and version I got wasn't working) which was a bit of a ball ache. But I was on 50mbit Broadband then, so I didn't mind at all. Now I'm on 2mbit downloading even Steam games takes forever so I just don't bother.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
[/quote]
Moved house?
[quote user=EricManning] Otester, I don't think anyone on TAN - except maybe Ed and Cadpig - really favors anti-piracy measures.
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
[/quote]
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
Moved house?
But it's pretty obvious the UK is pursuing downloaders, as they have explicitly stated. It seems a bit unreasonable to believe such a huge loophole to protect pirates exists. If anyone tries to rely on this defense, they will likely get into worse trouble.
Looking at the code, it seems pretty straightforward that downloaders will be tracked and issued fines / denied internet access. There are also punishments for "Secondary" or "Indirect" infringement. I know you may have a pretty extreme personal view of what should be legal... but that is not the world we live in.
We'll have to wait and see, but copyright trolls like ACS:Law in the past went after uploader (and to be clear I don't just mean seeders, even uploading while downloading).
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
[/quote]
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
[/quote]
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
Yes they did...
The requester isn't involved in the supposed process, Mr. Oxford Dictionary says so.
If you don't get this then I guess you really do need this holiday to unfuck yourself.
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
If only the uploader can be held responsible, why were old ladies being sued hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a 32 year old woman suied 1.9 million dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a blind man sued for downloading porn he couldn't watch?
Why is it legal that users of bittorrent sites that download pirated content are targetted for lawsuits?
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
If only the uploader can be held responsible, why were old ladies being sued hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a 32 year old woman suied 1.9 million dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a blind man sued for downloading porn he couldn't watch?
Why is it legal that users of bittorrent sites that download pirated content are targetted for lawsuits?
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
[/quote]
Data retention last time I checked only involves the main url (eg: http://www.google.co.uk/), anything past the last / is considered content and not logged.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]OK, the requester (downloader) isn't involved in the 'file-sharing' process and doesn't go online to look for something to 'make a similar or identical version of', he doesn't 'reproduce' something else on his own hard drive, no buttons or links are clicked on which initiate a process where a 'command will copy a file from one disc to another'...
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
You just mean anyone who had their IP address visible on a sharing network. This seems to be the easiest, if not only way a private firm would be able to identify pirates.
Now, the Government and ISPs are getting involved. They can have access to a lot more information. They can issue orders for MegaUpload logs, or just scan traffic to reported sites.
I don't think legality was ever the case. It was never legal to download copyrighted stuff, but if you did it in secret then it was harder to catch you. I'm sure you'll just use offshore proxies you trust won't release information to the UK law enforcement... but I wouldn't recommend trying to challenge the legality of piracy.
Data retention last time I checked only involves the main url (eg: http://www.google.co.uk/), anything past the last / is considered content and not logged.
So, when I (the requester) want to download something, it just happens, all without my involvement in the process... I don't search for anything, I don't click on a link, I haven't configured any software to put the data in a specific place for the storing or anything else, and I certainly don't watch/listen to the new copy of the media... it all happens without my involvement in the process. Everything is sent to my pc without me (the requester/downloader) being involved in the process.
And remember. It's not theft. It's copying, hence the word copyright... except one cannot copy a file she/he doesn't have... so you're not even doing that.
What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
Well, we can either believe your interpretation of the law, or the people who made the law. They say they are going to fine downloaders, so it seems reasonable they can. You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist. From my straightforward reading of the law, "transferring" unauthorized material seems to be a criminal and civil breach. Possession of an unauthorized copy is also an offense.
Is there some recent successful appeal in which this defense was used?
The Digital Economy Act 2010 has gone through the various judicial reviews and is already law. Everything this article describes is the law.
Well, we can either believe your interpretation of the law, or the people who made the law. They say they are going to fine downloaders, so it seems reasonable they can. You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist. From my straightforward reading of the law, "transferring" unauthorized material seems to be a criminal and civil breach. Possession of an unauthorized copy is also an offense.
Is there some recent successful appeal in which this defense was used?
The Digital Economy Act 2010 has gone through the various judicial reviews and is already law. Everything this article describes is the law.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
[/quote]
From my POV you need to learn to compete with the free distribution model, make people want to purchase from you, if the price outweighs user friendliness, they will be off to their local P2P/Warez site.
[quote user=EricManning]You're basically saying they are enforcing a law that doesn't exist.
[/quote]
According to the wording yes, whether that would stop them or not, we'll just have to wait and see.
Russian and Chinese crackers seem to love to take my software, rip out the registration stuff, then sell it themselves. I basically just try to control the English markets, using takedown notices to control Google and Youtube. If I couldn't control this market, I wouldn't make a cent.
However, I've basically come to accept that my stuff would make the world richer if everything I wrote were given away for free. The problem is that I need to eat. We would need a "socialized" society that paid me by the hour, based on relative effort, skill, and popularity of things I produce.
The only other alternative I see is a completely Capitalist model in which everything is distributed in an App-Store fashion, where everything is locked down and we all pay for everything we use.
From my POV you need to learn to compete with the free distribution model, make people want to purchase from you, if the price outweighs user friendliness, they will be off to their local P2P/Warez site.
According to the wording yes, whether that would stop them or not, we'll just have to wait and see.
[/quote]
I have over 180 games on Steam and all the decent FPS's I could find on Android.
Regarding P2W, WoT and WoWP are damn addictive.
I have over 180 games on Steam and all the decent FPS's I could find on Android.
Regarding P2W, WoT and WoWP are damn addictive.
[/quote]
do you mean the tip or where the ball sack starts?
[quote] Unless what they have to purchase lasts forever and is a one off payment and DOESN'T cost more than a usual game in the end... nah, fuck that. [/quote]
mass effect 3s multiplayer has this store system that has been making them a ton of cash apparently. basically, for every game you play you earn credits to buy guns, supplies, etc. But the way you get them is by buying a pack, inside the pack is random shit, so you may play 2 to 3 missions and buy a pack that just has junk in it. However, you also have the option of literally buying a pack, and people do this more than often. its like 2-3 dollars to buy, but its as additive as buying trading cards.
do you mean the tip or where the ball sack starts?
mass effect 3s multiplayer has this store system that has been making them a ton of cash apparently. basically, for every game you play you earn credits to buy guns, supplies, etc. But the way you get them is by buying a pack, inside the pack is random shit, so you may play 2 to 3 missions and buy a pack that just has junk in it. However, you also have the option of literally buying a pack, and people do this more than often. its like 2-3 dollars to buy, but its as additive as buying trading cards.
Yeah, store systems like that suck. I wouldn't buy shit. Same goes for BF3's buying the unlock kits for £24.99 whereas others have to work for them.
Yeah, store systems like that suck. I wouldn't buy shit. Same goes for BF3's buying the unlock kits for £24.99 whereas others have to work for them.
[/quote]
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
If only the uploader can be held responsible, why were old ladies being sued hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a 32 year old woman suied 1.9 million dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a blind man sued for downloading porn he couldn't watch?
Why is it legal that users of bittorrent sites that download pirated content are targetted for lawsuits?
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
[/quote]
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
I must add a few questions to your extended version of otester's copyright laws :
What the fuck is a torrent site and why should I visit it if stuff just automatically gets downloaded to my computer without my knowledge, since I, the requester, have done absolutely nothing to get those files on my Hard Drive? Why do I need a Torrent Client if stuff is just automatically 'pushed' to my computer without my knowledge or authorization? Why did I download all those .torrent files from all these needless torrent sites? Was Napster and KaZaA just cool chat services where files were "pushed" to my computer without me ever knowing? Why did I waste my time searching for lesbian prawn then? But of course! IT WAS ON MY COMPUTER ALL ALONG WITHOUT ME EVER KNOWING!
If only the uploader can be held responsible, why were old ladies being sued hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a 32 year old woman suied 1.9 million dollars for downloading mp3's? Why was a blind man sued for downloading porn he couldn't watch?
Why is it legal that users of bittorrent sites that download pirated content are targetted for lawsuits?
Simple answer, otester is wrong, and isn't that great at reading law. It's no surprise, as otester is always wrong.
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
[/quote]
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
[/quote]
Nothing coherent, and nothing that he'll stand by in a few months if his behaviour in this thread is anything to go by.... lol.
Otester, do you have any answers, at all?
Nothing coherent, and nothing that he'll stand by in a few months if his behaviour in this thread is anything to go by.... lol.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]What a fine imaginary world you live in. I really must visit one day. A world where you insist that people should be held responsible for their actions (especially any poorpers who may wish to live or have family), except when that behaviour is something you engage in... for example downloading movies or watching kiddie porn... second thoughts, I really don't want to visit.
[/quote]
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
[/quote]
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er.
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
[/quote]
Already did earlier, the oxford dictionary links.
Could you provide evidence for both these statements?
Already did earlier, the oxford dictionary links.
Already did earlier, the oxford dictionary links.
[/quote]
Do the oed definitions provide information regarding the source code for torrent software?
Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?
No. They deal with neither, just as they provided no insight of relevance with regard to the topic the first time you posted them
Already did earlier, the oxford dictionary links.
Do the oed definitions provide information regarding the source code for torrent software?
Do they provide insight into the wording of the law?
No. They deal with neither, just as they provided no insight of relevance with regard to the topic the first time you posted them
Logs
Evidence of Willfullness
Illegal files or proof of existence at one point in time on the pirate's hard drive, and/or ISP logs proving the person downloaded said information. Key word: downloaded
If Otester were correct, and downloading was legal, no one would get letters from their ISP threatening court order, and no one would get court letters detailing the suit.
Evidence of will would be easy, they could state that Billy downloaded a torrent from torrentsiteexample.com. All they would need is to see a torrent client on Billy's computer, a .torrent file in the list on the client or on the computer, a copy of the file Billy's computer. Billy initiated the process by using a torrent client to download a .torrent file. Torrent sites or servers have absolutely nothing to do with this key step. It's ALL on Billy's ass here. The Torrent client opens the .torrent file Billy willingly downloaded from the torrent site, asks the user where they want to save it and what what part of the file they want downloaded, and loads the tracker information. The client on Billy's computer initiates the process by opening authentication with the other seeds. Billy is the initiator, no one else is. He chooses the torrent file, he loads the torrent file by telling the file what program to use to open it (or automatically open it as he would have assigned in the past), he chooses where to save it and what parts to download. You don't need to cloud arguments with the server-side commands to see this.
Secondly, this is directly at otester, the COPY command is never initiated, because you cannot COPY from a hard drive to somewhere on the internet. However, someone can "copy" from you by "GETTING" or "FETCHING" the file from your computer, in dummy terms "DOWNLOADING". The server does not initiate the requests, the client does, in all instances, no way around that. You want to talk technical, there you go, technicalities just defeated your argument, again, and again, and again, and again.
Logs
Evidence of Willfullness
Illegal files or proof of existence at one point in time on the pirate's hard drive, and/or ISP logs proving the person downloaded said information. Key word: downloaded
If Otester were correct, and downloading was legal, no one would get letters from their ISP threatening court order, and no one would get court letters detailing the suit.
Evidence of will would be easy, they could state that Billy downloaded a torrent from torrentsiteexample.com. All they would need is to see a torrent client on Billy's computer, a .torrent file in the list on the client or on the computer, a copy of the file Billy's computer. Billy initiated the process by using a torrent client to download a .torrent file. Torrent sites or servers have absolutely nothing to do with this key step. It's ALL on Billy's ass here. The Torrent client opens the .torrent file Billy willingly downloaded from the torrent site, asks the user where they want to save it and what what part of the file they want downloaded, and loads the tracker information. The client on Billy's computer initiates the process by opening authentication with the other seeds. Billy is the initiator, no one else is. He chooses the torrent file, he loads the torrent file by telling the file what program to use to open it (or automatically open it as he would have assigned in the past), he chooses where to save it and what parts to download. You don't need to cloud arguments with the server-side commands to see this.
Secondly, this is directly at otester, the COPY command is never initiated, because you cannot COPY from a hard drive to somewhere on the internet. However, someone can "copy" from you by "GETTING" or "FETCHING" the file from your computer, in dummy terms "DOWNLOADING". The server does not initiate the requests, the client does, in all instances, no way around that. You want to talk technical, there you go, technicalities just defeated your argument, again, and again, and again, and again.
[/quote]
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
[/quote]
Literal definitions have absolutely no connection to legal definitions. Until you make that connection you'll use the oxford dictionary like it's relevant proof, and we'll all continue to make your arguments look haphazardly retarded.
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
Literal definitions have absolutely no connection to legal definitions. Until you make that connection you'll use the oxford dictionary like it's relevant proof, and we'll all continue to make your arguments look haphazardly retarded.
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
[/quote]
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
Yes, you were trying to say copying involved the downloader in regards to the CDPA 1988, according to the Oxford dictionary, it doesn't.
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
[/quote]
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
In other thoughts, I'm beginning to think that 4000 pounds he made last year while living with his mammy all went to truly mind altering substances. That's all that could account for that, and his mental shortcomings. I guess, until he posts a picture, we can all assume he got dropped on his head, repeatedly, as a child, and proceeded to take acid in his early 20's while he attempted to get rich off a one-man video game.
No... I asked you to provide evidence for the two statements you made:
"The actual copy command is issued by the sender.
If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."
Also, the OED doesn't make any statement one way or t'other regarding any law. You're extrapolating beyond the very limited definition given and providing no evidence to back up this extrapolation... why doesn't that surprise me?
Otester, have you ever been checked out for a thought disorder? Seriously.
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
In other thoughts, I'm beginning to think that 4000 pounds he made last year while living with his mammy all went to truly mind altering substances. That's all that could account for that, and his mental shortcomings. I guess, until he posts a picture, we can all assume he got dropped on his head, repeatedly, as a child, and proceeded to take acid in his early 20's while he attempted to get rich off a one-man video game.
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
[/quote]
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary... :/
urnotdoingitrite you need to ask him the same question 20 times in different, more elongated forms each time in order for him to show his line of reasoning. Otherwise, he'll keep attempting to deflect burden of proof. Key point, he has the burden of proof, you don't. Until he can prove his statements he will be forever incorrect.
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary...
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er." [/quote]
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."[/quote]
The definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
[/quote]
Hey fuckstick, tell me more about how literal definitions and legal definitions are exactly the same and hold up in court together. They don't, so keep dreaming. Laws are not written by the dictionary.
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
The definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
Hey fuckstick, tell me more about how literal definitions and legal definitions are exactly the same and hold up in court together. They don't, so keep dreaming. Laws are not written by the dictionary.
[/quote]
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary... :/
[/quote]
He's a fucking moron. There is no more that needs to be said. He'll never be able to prove he has a sliver of intelligence. He'll just keep repeating dribble from the oxford dictionary like it applies to the current and future topics about legalities. Us half-decently edumacated fellows know the difference.
lol. You're right... I want to officially 'give up', but I keep hoping that he'll step up to the mark and do something more than offer us tangential one line replies.I've been trying for months to get him to engage, to explore his ideas in depth, but I'm beginning to think that these attempts are in-line with Einstein's definition of insanity. I want to believe that he's an intelligent guy, unfortunately he keeps providing evidence to the contrary...
He's a fucking moron. There is no more that needs to be said. He'll never be able to prove he has a sliver of intelligence. He'll just keep repeating dribble from the oxford dictionary like it applies to the current and future topics about legalities. Us half-decently edumacated fellows know the difference.
And you think either of those derisory replies prove your point? Not even close.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4[/video]
And you think either of those derisory replies prove your point? Not even close.
oh the paradox in my brain
oh the paradox in my brain
[/quote]
Sore loser?
Sore loser?
Sore loser?
[/quote]
Otester, quote where in the link you think you've proved your point.
Sore loser?
Otester, quote where in the link you think you've proved your point.
Otester, quote where in the link you think you've proved your point.
[/quote]
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The actual copy command is issued by the sender.[/quote]
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to include the requester/receiver, you are going to need to write a new law (or Mandelson will) because as it stands, only the sender is classed as a file-sharer/copy-er."[/quote]
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
[/quote]
Otester, quote where in the link you think you've proved your point.
http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/udp_tracker_protocol.html
The legal definitions would have to be decided in court (so you could be right, this remains untested), but going by Oxford dictionary they do not on include the downloader.
you're right, proof.
you're right, proof.
you're right, proof.
[/quote]
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you
you're right, proof.
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you
[/quote]
If you actually explained anything, then we'd ask you to dumb it down. Unfortunately, it is our job to dumb it down for you. As has been the story for months around here.
Digi won this debate 60 posts ago. The majority of the other 60 was Digi dumbing things down to an uncomfortably stupid level just for you to understand, and you still didn't understand. Can you not see the pattern we're all drawing so vividly clear here? You're mentally fucking damaged.
I'm not going to dumb it down anymore for you, it's not my job to educate you
If you actually explained anything, then we'd ask you to dumb it down. Unfortunately, it is our job to dumb it down for you. As has been the story for months around here.
Digi won this debate 60 posts ago. The majority of the other 60 was Digi dumbing things down to an uncomfortably stupid level just for you to understand, and you still didn't understand. Can you not see the pattern we're all drawing so vividly clear here? You're mentally fucking damaged.