The Pirate Bay taken down
Spirou
Police raid file sharing site
Published: 31st May 2006 15:51 CET
Police have closed down The Pirate Bay, a Sweden-based file sharing site
and one of the most popular websites of its kind in the world.
Three people were taken in for questioning after police raids in Sweden
on Wednesday. The trio, ages 22, 24 and 28, are suspected of violating
property rights legislation, police spokesman Ulf Göranzon said.
Related Articles
Servers connected to the site have been impounded and the site was down
on Wednesday afternoon, although the operators of The Pirate Bay have
set up a temporary website to provide updates on the situation.
Some fifty policemen and women were involved in raids on ten homes and
offices in Sweden.
The three men taken in by police were still being questioned on
Wednesday afternoon. They all have links to The Pirate Bay. Prosecutors
will decide whether to detain the men after they have been questioned.
"The suspects are not people who download files, but are people who have
relations to the website," Ulf Göranzon told The Local.
He would not reveal anything more about the roles that the men played.
Police have been monitoring the website and the men behind it for some
time. Computers were taken during raids on the men's homes and offices
to secure evidence.
"We are now going to look at how the operation is structured," Göranzon
said.
"At the moment we are talking to lots of people about this case. We are
still at a very early stage in our investigations," he said.
He would not reveal whether police had their eyes on further suspects.
Rickard Falkvinge of the Pirate Party, which campaigns in favour of file
sharing, said that the police had "set aside the rule of law".
"Which company would have put up with this treatment? Which company
would put up with the police coming and cutting off the entire operation
before it was proven that it was guilty of something criminal," asked
Falkvinge.
"In this case, Pirate Bay has not committed any crime. Sure, they are
disliked by large American media interests, but it is actually not a
crime to be disliked, and definitely not a reason for the Swedish police
to shut down one of the world's most prominent meeting places for young
people."
But Henrik Pontén, lawyer at Antipiratbyrån (The Anti-Pirate Bureau) in
Stockholm, welcomed the move to close down the site.
"It is good that the Swedish police are now prioritising this kind of
crime. The copyright laws finance creativity within film, computer
gaming, music and other culture," said Pontén.
"People who break copyright laws steal from the creators and
movie-watching public of the future. The closure of The Pirate Bay is
therefore good for all of us who enjoy new film and entertainment."
James Savage
Chris Sobieniak
doesn't get involved).
Dan Skunk
the price?
"Spirou" <spi...@spam.nothanks.net> wrote in message
news:e5ke3j$2lnn$1...@urocyon.critter.net...
BR
> Why don't people just choose not to watch movies if they don't agree
> with the price?
Relativistic morality, amd materialistic philosophy.
BR
> Still don't see this as an end to the whole thing (unless INTERPOL
> doesn't get involved).
End no. But it does send a message...you're not out of reach.
Dan Skunk
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.01....@comcast.net...
Yeah... I suppose people who download movies from BitTorrenter aren't really
trying to make a philosophical or moral statement, are they? They're just
thieves, plain and simple.
vladimir.d...@gmail.com
Dan Skunk wrote:
> Yeah... I suppose people who download movies from BitTorrenter aren't really
> trying to make a philosophical or moral statement, are they? They're just
> thieves, plain and simple.
How can someone "steal" a movie? By taking a physical object that
contains a representation of the movie out of the shop without
authorization. How can someone "steal" the pattern
1001111010001010101... that is the representation of that movie? They
can't. It's physically impossible to "steal" a concept. It's possible
to "steal" a hard drive with the concept on it (or a representation of
it).
Put it this way. Piracy is like copying. You're not "stealing" - you
are duplicating something. Sure, maybe if you duplicate that something
for money you're stealing.
How can someone "steal" a song? Do you steal it when you sing it? Do
you steal it when you think of it's lyrics? Do you steal it when you
take the tune and present to your mates an alternate lyric to it?
Think about that before using the word "stealing".
larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
Dan Skunk
<vladimir.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149177771....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Copyright: If someone owns the right to make copies and you make copies
without their permission, you're taking something they own away from them,
ie. you're taking something from someone unlawfully, ie. stealing.
And you say it's only stealing if you do it for money? What's the
difference? Think about that.
You admit it's wrong, yet somehow, think it's ok to deprive someone of their
legal copy right so long as you only do it for your own use. You're still
stealing if you don't sell it.
Skytech
> with
> the price?
>
I know too many people who think they're owed this stuff.
Dan Skunk
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:e5nk63$t3c$1...@urocyon.critter.net...
But that's preposterous. How do they come to that conclusion?
BR
> Think about that before using the word "stealing".
I don't "have to think about it". This forum is filled with artists. Try
walking in their shoes for a change. You may not be taking "goods", but
you are certainly taking a livelyhood, and definately their trust, and
faith.
BR
And that audiance is a "Neverending Story".
Chris Sobieniak
The only real benefit I saw in this was the ability to watch something
that isn't licensed in your home country. Unlike anime which would be
the most familiar of torrents out there, I tend to lean towards things
that are so obscure as to NEVER be released stateside, like Ivo
Caprino's stop-motion classic "Pinchcliffe Grand Prix" or something out
of Eastern Europe from the Cold War era. Things that are hard to get,
cost more money and usually harder to obtain due to the language
barrier in some cases. I was able to get some of this already and feel
glad to do so rather than be like everyone else when it comes to
domestic productions.
Lorrie
> without their permission, you're taking something they own away from them,
> ie. you're taking something from someone unlawfully, ie. stealing.
>
> And you say it's only stealing if you do it for money? What's the
> difference? Think about that.
>
> You admit it's wrong, yet somehow, think it's ok to deprive someone of their
> legal copy right so long as you only do it for your own use. You're still
> stealing if you don't sell it.
Yannow, I really don't care. The RIAA says don't download. OK, fine, I
won't do that. I also won't buy any more of your ridiculously
overpriced CDs. $20.00 for a CD with one or two good songs you heard on
the radio and ten other shit tracks just ain't worth it. They can keep
their CDs, their copyrights, their synthostars.
There is *lots* of excellent music in any genre you'd care to hear from
some damn fine artists who *want* you to download and listen to them.
I'll order their CDs at half to a quarter of the price of an RIAA CD.
The RIAA may have a monopoly, but it sure isn't on talent.
AFAIC, the RIAA and the artists who sign with them can go straight to
hell.
Skipai Otter
>> the price?
>>
>
> I know too many people who think they're owed this stuff.
Trust me I don't, I've seen a rather disturbing down curve in quality coming
from Hollywood over the last two years. Which is saying something as I've
not bought that many if at all this year new movies on dvd either
considering it's just caught up with what rubbish is coming out in the
cinema as of late.
Then again, perhaps my judgement is flawed and I've been spoilt by the likes
of the LOTR movies etc and there isn't as you say a real blockbuster to
improve on that. *shrug*
Mind you, wouldn't say no to Alien 5 if it was an 18 and was made better
than that lame AvP rubbish...
--
Skipai
Skipai Otter
news:1149230777....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The problem with the RIAA is that they're a bit slow on the uptake of new
technology. I would say the same for MPAA as well, though it isn't much of
a problem with them as you can't get a disc with several movies on one
silver platter as of yet.
Though you're right about the CD side of things, I've not bought one now
since 1994-5, though only a few talking books here and there that's about
it. There is a good stable download as you pay for the tracks you want now
to put onto your own CD if you wanted.
Mind you, I have to say you're paying a lot more for CD's than we do over
here now. They're about £6 for a album in the UK these days. Which is
about $11 in your money.
--
Skipai
M. Mitchell Marmel
"Skipai Otter" <skipa...@fishbones.hotmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with the RIAA is that they're a bit slow on the uptake of new
> technology. I would say the same for MPAA as well, though it isn't much of
> a problem with them as you can't get a disc with several movies on one
> silver platter as of yet.
Well, you CAN get double-sided DVDs with a different movie on each
side. However, since these tend to be different Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis
movies, this is of limited utility.
> Mind you, I have to say you're paying a lot more for CD's than we do over
> here now. They're about £6 for a album in the UK these days. Which is
> about $11 in your money.
(looks at shelf under computer) I'm still trying to figure out how I
managed to buy as many CDs as I have. The little beggars just sneak up
on you, I suppose.
-MMM-
--
http://www.livejournal.com/~marmelmm/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaliVisions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sawyercatunleashed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/furry_city/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/losgatosafterdark/
M. Mitchell Marmel
Mathue <mat...@spymac.com> wrote:
> It may be preposterous but it's true. They feel the media companies
> have ripped them off on the past, thus they use situational ethics to
> conclude they are owed for being ripped off.
I dunno. Having paid good coin for The Wall on LP, cassette and (Ghu
help me) 8-track, I'm a tad leary about shelling out for the CD version.
> Ever listen to Chris Rock in his early standup days? Substitute 'the
> man' for 'the media companies'. Same idea.
I have a private theory that it's not so much the lost sales that irk
the media companies as it is the pirates mooning them and daring them to
do their worst. I could be mistaken, of course.
Dan Skunk
"Skipai Otter" <skipa...@fishbones.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eac1cF...@individual.net...
I've bought a handfull of CD's. Just ones where there whole album is good
and the price is around $10. $20 is too much.
And I do have a lot of music downloaded to my hard drive. I used to go on
file sharing networks to listen to music and then just kinda keep it. Is how
I got to know any music at all and how I got to know what I wanted to buy.
If I like something enough, and can buy if for a reasonable price, I do;
most of it I would just do without though if it weren't downloaded. I have
no desire to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars for cd's that might
have only a track or two I'm only mildly interested in. Is cool to have lots
of different music to listen to, but not *that* cool. I honestly couldn't
afford to buy everything I have, anyway, even if I could find it all. I
suppose I could rationalize myself by being able to honestly say no one's
loosing any money from it. If anything, they've gained a bit by it allowing
me to be interested.
Dan Skunk
"Mathue" <mat...@spymac.com> wrote in message
news:010620062210192530%mat...@spymac.com...
> It may be preposterous but it's true. They feel the media companies
> have ripped them off on the past, thus they use situational ethics to
> conclude they are owed for being ripped off.
Oh... I get it then.
I suppose that kinda works. It's still illegal, but may be accurate in some
cases. In most cases though, I bet what they've stolen is of greater value
than what was stolen from them though. :P
BR
> I have no desire to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars for cd's
> that might have only a track or two I'm only mildly interested in.
Yes, but how do you know the songs will be of mild interest to you if you
don't try?* Yes, there's always a bit of risk in shopping. Didn't seem to
hurt our granparents none, even though they didn't have the internet back
then.
*I should also point out some record stores will order the CD for you and
allow you to listen to the entire thing with no obligation to purchase.
Dan Skunk
I was refering to songs I already have and have listened to. Most of them I
don't care a whole lot about. Not worth paying money for, wouldn't really
miss not having them.
vladimir.d...@gmail.com
It's definitely not "definately". Ahem.
I agree. You don't have to think about it. You don't have to think
about anything, if it comes to that, really. If media companies charge
excessive rates for multimedia content then sure - go ahead, old fat
CEO, take another $20 out of my wallet. Next time, help yourself.
There are three arguments here - and I hope I do not come across as
putting them together into one big pile. Firstly, I suggest you look
around and see what's recently happened in Canada:
"Some of Canada's best known musicians, including Avril Lavigne, Sarah
McLachlin, Sum 41, and Barenaked Ladies, have formed a new copyright
coalition. The artists say in a press release that they oppose file
sharing lawsuits, the use of DRM, and DMCA-style legislation and that
they want record labels to stop claiming that they represent their
views."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/0015239
http://www.musiccreators.ca/docs/Press_Release-April_26.pdf
While on the first point, the original topic was the raid on TPB, and
it can safely be said that the most TPB can be accused of is accessory
to copyright infringement. However, the raids' consequences have had
more serious implications than that. 200-300 businesses websites were
raided too. That alone is more serious than TPB being raided.
Then take a look at prq.se, the website of the hosting company raided:
"The PRQ datacenter has been raided by the Swedish police. All servers
and network equipment was seized in an act of blatant abuse of power by
public prosecutor Håkan Roswall."
"Our team of lawyers are working the legal parts, and we are going to
sue the Swedish state to get the equipment returned and get
compensation for the multi-million dollar losses sustained by us and
our customers."
That brings me to the second part of my first point - in that the MPAA
had no business whatsoever in Sweden. Sure, it works to protect the
rights of movie studios etc. But first and foremost it's a business. It
may not have the official recognition as a collusive oligopoly (with
gv't involved so I suppose it's even worse) like OPEC - but the same
way the price of oil is high because OPEC set it, the same applies to
the *AA group. (Besides, AA stands for American Association, and what
has Sweden got to do with America. Sweden is a democracy after all.)
My second point is that if the movies/music was fairly priced then all
consumers would buy it.
My third point is that the laws that could be applied to physical
entities cannot be applied to information in the same way. First of
all, "information" in the way I'm using the word, can be divided into
two categories: ideas and implementation of those ideas. The former is
patentable in some form (we in Europe, for example, thankfully don't
have software patents). Stealing someone's idea exactly is definitely
stealing. Modifying it in an original way is not. ("Standing on the
shoulders of giants" is a positive quote)
Be aware though, that "ideas" such as "song" etc. are not ideas but
concepts - they are still information, but outside the context I'm
describing it in. One cannot patent a concept - imagine if someone
patented the concept "circle"
The latter category contains multimedia content and other types of
information. This category has two distinctive subcategories -
"critical" and "non-critical". This is difficult to explain - but.
"Critical" contains information such as business and trade secrets,
personal and private data etc. "Non-critical" contains information that
hasn't already been mentioned - so songs and movies will go into that
category.
"Critical" information should be shared very carefully - it's essential
for privacy. "Non-critical" information should be shared openly - it's
essential for freedom of speech etc.
Where does copyright come into all this? Well - "concepts" shouldn't be
copyrighted and ideas should have some copyright protection. The
implementations should have copyright protection that is proportional
to their value - their real value, not their nominal value, but their
cost in labour. (As a maximum)
(Please don't hesitate to correct me - this was written in a single go
and the idealogical formulation may be rough. Also, I do not hold any
ill intentions against the person/s I reply/ied to - so if I seem a
little mocking or angry then it's a usage of writing style. Apologies.)
[The contents of this post are intellectual property Vladimir Lushnikov
2006]
Vladimir Lushnikov
Dan Skunk
> In article <e5pbc1$2q6c$1...@urocyon.critter.net>, Dan Skunk
> <dans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh... I get it then.
> >
> > I suppose that kinda works. It's still illegal, but may be accurate in
some
> > cases. In most cases though, I bet what they've stolen is of greater
value
> > than what was stolen from them though. :P
>
>
> I have no problem paying for media, even paying for it in different
> forms so long as the media gives me a significant improvement over
> prior media. The new HD DVD formats for example give me quite a bit
> more visual data, however, their rather anti-consumer stance severely
> reduces my enjoyment of said media. Thus my incentive to purchase it is
> greatly dampened.
Anti-consumer?
Dan Skunk
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <baron.w...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4fr082157e2h9jd80...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:23:26 -0400, "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com>
> declaimed the following in alt.fan.furry:
>
>
> > Anti-consumer?
> >
>
> If I recall... The Blu-Ray spec is designed to allow for remote
> disabling of the drives, should someone manages to crack a drive's
> encryption logic, the manufacturers can send signals to /all/ drives of
> that model and shut them down.
That can't be right. People who havn't even done anything getting their
drives shut down would be stupid.
BR
> I was refering to songs I already have and have listened to. Most of
> them I don't care a whole lot about. Not worth paying money for,
> wouldn't really miss not having them.
Then sell them and get some of your money back.
vladimir.d...@gmail.com
No consumer would buy them. Or do you suggest selling them back to the
media company? What about the record of them in your brain?
Dan Skunk
Skytech
>
> companies
> have ripped them off on the past, thus they use situational ethics
> to
> conclude they are owed for being ripped off.
>
Some don't need a villian to justify their actions. People overspend
on what they consiter priorities, often luxuries such as broadband
internet or cellphones, then moan and wail that they can't afford
absolutely must have entertaiment such as movies, CDs, and DVDs, maybe
games too. What to do? Behave and budget or determine what really is
nesessary and cut back? Nooooo, we deserve more!
Oh look, cheap or free stolen goods!...
M. Mitchell Marmel
Mathue <mat...@spymac.com> wrote:
> I suppose, though I'd wager one could still legally get the wall on
> CD without paying full price (A used book store that also selled used
> CD comes to mind).
True for telling, which is why the industry tried to outlaw the sales of
used CDs. Heh.
> > I have a private theory that it's not so much the lost sales that irk
> > the media companies as it is the pirates mooning them and daring them to
> > do their worst. I could be mistaken, of course.
>
> Well, it certainly doesn't help. But for example I'm sure SFA and
> Rabbit Valley were more concerned with the lost sales than Sibe
> thumbing his nose.
Probably, yes. However, had the activity gone on sans nosethumbing, it
probably wouldn't have been noticed...
Brian O'Connell
news:e5q3mb$1s4m$1...@urocyon.critter.net...
> I didn't pay money for them. Just found them on file sharing networks.
The real "ethical" issue is that the RIAA considers the CDs to still be
worth $13+ per disc. If one goes into the wayback machine to when CDs were
first released, they were worth $13+ because:
(a) The technology was still new back in the early to mid 80s, the members
of the RIAA were compensating for the costs of upgrading to said technology,
thusly, they had to charge more.
However, the current RIAA excuse is:
(a) The technology they've paid off well over a decade and a half ago.
Despite this, their CDs now cost pennies on the dollar to produce. They're
actually cheaper to produce than audio cassettes (less moving parts), and
far less than vinyl records (because of the lower demand). They have been
milking this for over a decade now, and actually have been faced with a
class action suit due to the same.
(b) Their claim, much like the oil industry's (you should know this by now),
is that their prices are based upon what the consumer is willing to spend,
not what they're actually willing to price it at, based on their actual
cost.
Now onto the real world facts:
Furry artists, producing their prints, CDs, et al, are barely breaking even,
even when pricing such at a significantly lower price than the RIAA, et al.
Oh, and lest I forget the original, incredibly moronic reason Sibe went into
the whole piracy thing, was a revenge tactic against myself, because I dared
stand up to his insistance that my owing him a picture for $20, decided that
it wasn't worth a refund since he was insisting on not only harasssing me
for months at a time, but staging nonstop DOS and various other hacks
against my friends, myself, and others. Much akin to staging a protest
against McDonalds for not giving a refund for services not rendered, by
burning down not only McDonalds, but Taco Bell, KFC, et al.
BR
> No consumer would buy them.
Speaking for all consumers, are we?
BR
> (b) Their claim, much like the oil industry's (you should know this by
> now), is that their prices are based upon what the consumer is willing
> to spend, not what they're actually willing to price it at, based on
> their actual cost.
And how many real-world goods and services are priced otherwise?
Brian O'Connell
None, because they have a captive audience.
BR
And how many companies produce pepsi?
Patrick Elliott
skipa...@fishbones.hotmail.com says...
"public" interest. Even libraries are finding themselves on the end of
lawsuits for the possibility that someone might photocopy a page someone
else doesn't want they to, while doing a school report. Restraunts have
and *are* being sued for playing music in their places, on the grounds
that its the same thing as a "concert" or other "public performance". You
could go around the country and record every damn thing imaginable off
the airwaves, but now satellite radio is getting sued for letting people
record the stuff they broadcast. And that isn't even mentioning the
literal basements full of old movies, old songs, old books, etc., all
rotting out of existence, because the companies that own them convinced
the government that *requiring* the companies to apply for and renew
copyright on them was too big of a burden, so now they gain that
automatically and its perpetual, for as long as there is enough of the
film left for one @$#$#@$ frame to still be recognizable. And even then,
if its documented some place, they could still sue you for attempting to
recreate it, even if not even the original scripts, props *or* film still
exists.
Making copies is not legal, but what these "copyright owners" want the
world to look like should be listed under the international standards for
human rights as a crime against humanity. If they can't see the
difference between stopping illegal copying for profit, sharing that
actually increases their profits and flushing our entire culture down the
drain because 50 years from now "todays" material isn't "profitable",
then I say screw them. I have more sympathy for the guy that spends 3
days downloading a CD they can't even find in the store anymore over
dialup than I do the imaginary lost profits of the industry. Its just
unfortunate that for that poor soul to not be screwed, other people have
to copy thousands of CDs and disperse them to people we both agree don't
have a valid excuse for downloading them.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Brian O'Connell
That is irrelevant.
BR
> "BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.06.03....@comcast.net...
>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:08:41 -0700, Brian O'Connell wrote:
>>
>> > "BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2006.06.03....@comcast.net...
>> >> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:58:25 -0700, Brian O'Connell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > (b) Their claim, much like the oil industry's (you should know
>> >> > this by now), is that their prices are based upon what the
>> >> > consumer is willing to spend, not what they're actually willing to
>> >> > price it at, based on their actual cost.
>> >>
>> >> And how many real-world goods and services are priced otherwise?
>> >
>> > None, because they have a captive audience.
>>
>> And how many companies produce pepsi?
>
> That is irrelevant.
Captivity is relative.
jarro...@gmail.com
And it's distributed in four different countries.
There's now fallover/rollover protection to keep them up and they will
be distributing more of their service around the world.
Congratulations. Now the pirate bay will never be defeated, ever.
Hope I can have some of that champagne you all were drinking earlier.
:P
vladimir.d...@gmail.com
BR wrote:
> Captivity is relative.
No. Captivity is absolute. Especially if it's your mind that captures
you.
Once a slave, always a slave.
BR
> Hope I can have some of that champagne you all were drinking earlier. :P
Don't worry. We can hit them from orbit. Yo ho ho and a glug glug.
BR
> No. Captivity is absolute. Especially if it's your mind that captures
> you.
BSDM anyone?
jarro...@gmail.com
I'm not a pirate.. in fact, I'm anti pirate and pro artists getting
what they want.
But part of the reason that nations and people are going to give the
Pirate Bay support is because the MPAA / RIAA brought about this raid.
American companies going abroad to influence local law enforcement will
NEVER win friends. Now, Pirate Bay's legal party gains influence in
decrying American companies buying off law enforcement. Voters will
vote for them because they don't want their companies being raided at
the behest of an American company. And soon, they might outright
legalize the Pirate Bay instead of leaving it on the fringe. They
might go even further and legalize pirating outright.
That's what this raid has accomplished. It's made people really pissed
off at major US companies.
BR
> That's what this raid has accomplished. It's made people really pissed
> off at major US companies.
Well before everyone gets ahead of themselves. Has a conclusive link been
shown, as opposed to the rampent speculation that usually substitutes for
it.
jarro...@gmail.com
You think the people care whether a link has been shown or not? That
party will point to the MPAA/RIAA's actions inside the US at
prosecuting their "War on Pirates." They'll point to the legal threats
they've gotten from the RIAA\MPAA. They'll point at the fact that they
got raided, and then they got their equipment returned. They'll get
people riled up and let them draw conclusions.
You really think people are going to care , by the time this is done,
whether the RIAA or MPAA did anything in this case?
They'd rather believe the possibility that an organization that has
stated multiple times that they'd shut this "industry" down tried to
influence people to do it, and failed.
jarro...@gmail.com
jarrodhe...@gmail.com wrote:
<snipped>
All that said and told.. the lead counsel for "The Pirate Bay" has a
blog. He states that the minister of Justice met with MPAA execs, and
then ordered the raid, despite advice and statements from the police
that they neither had the right or the cause.
Let me paint this picutre. The head of sweeden's justice department
met with the MPAA's lobbyists in the US. He traveled back, and within
a few days, ordered a raid of TPB, despite being told that it was an
illegal raid and that cause didn't exist. A few days later, the MPAA
removes its website in Sweeden fearing action. Then, the Pirate Bay
returns... and is still online, still operating from sweeden.
http://viborginternational.blogspot.com/
Here's that lawyer's blog.,
mouse
@comcast.net:
> Yes, but how do you know the songs will be of mild interest to you if
you
> don't try?* Yes, there's always a bit of risk in shopping. Didn't seem
to
> hurt our granparents none, even though they didn't have the internet
back
> then.
>
> *I should also point out some record stores will order the CD for you
and
> allow you to listen to the entire thing with no obligation to purchase.
You guys are all missing the point .. this is same exact shitfit the
record companies threw over blank recordable cassette tapes... and blank
disks.. and VHS etc etc etc ... OMG peopel can actually tape somethign
and give it to someone ! There will be no more music on planet earth in 2
years if this continues !!!!!!!!!!!!
only this time its about the internet instead...wow, it speeds up the
process... nothing has fundamentally changed.
same song and dance, over and over again
It doesn't fucking matter!
It never mattered!
http://tinyurl.com/r3xmq
DONT COPY THAT FLOPPY
WELCOME
TO THE
END
OF THE
COMPUTER
AGE.
Apperently the anti-piracy/copy protection movement in all its forms has
always been retarded.
mouse
news:e5qmss$2mpd$1...@urocyon.critter.net:
> Oh, and lest I forget the original, incredibly moronic reason Sibe
> went into the whole piracy thing, was a revenge tactic against myself,
> because I dared stand up to his insistance
you are such a fucking crackhead
Yeah! It was ALL about you Brian!
LOL, Fucking idiot. Sorry to be the one to inform you, but you 'dont
matter' in every conceivable measure.
d12s...@gmail.com
probably wont be busted so quicky, I know quite a few BT sites that
have far more traffic, yet they seem to work just fine, unlawful
activities don't automatically result in punishment, more often than
not, nothing would happen, but if you purposely spit on the authority's
face repeatedly, you bet you will face the consequences someday. Those
kids are just too stupid,living in a quasi-socialist country doesnt
necessarilly make you invulerable to law.
BTW, I'm a downloader, I think it's wrong, but it's just so damn easy
to acquire quality DVD/Music/Software without paying a dime, arresting
a few teenagers ang busting a few sites wont solve the problem, to
solve it, you have to find a new kind of model to make money from
artistic work, downloading/pirating may be wrong, may be right,
depending on you perspective, but they are definitely the future, old
methods are't going to be effective, you have to look into the future
to find the solution.
Chris Sobieniak
> All that said and told.. the lead counsel for "The Pirate Bay" has a
> blog. He states that the minister of Justice met with MPAA execs, and
> then ordered the raid, despite advice and statements from the police
> that they neither had the right or the cause.
>
> Let me paint this picutre. The head of sweeden's justice department
> met with the MPAA's lobbyists in the US. He traveled back, and within
> a few days, ordered a raid of TPB, despite being told that it was an
> illegal raid and that cause didn't exist. A few days later, the MPAA
> removes its website in Sweeden fearing action. Then, the Pirate Bay
> returns... and is still online, still operating from sweeden.
Thank heaven for the Swedes!
BR
> BTW, I'm a downloader, I think it's wrong, but it's just so damn easy to
> acquire quality DVD/Music/Software without paying a dime, arresting a
> few teenagers ang busting a few sites wont solve the problem, to solve
> it, you have to find a new kind of model to make money from artistic
> work, downloading/pirating may be wrong, may be right, depending on you
> perspective, but they are definitely the future, old methods are't going
> to be effective, you have to look into the future to find the solution.
Funny how one has to get a "new business model" to accomadate the same old
human behaviour.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<doge...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> Oh, and lest I forget the original, incredibly moronic reason Sibe went into
> the whole piracy thing, was a revenge tactic against myself, because I dared
> stand up to his insistance that my owing him a picture for $20,
Your practices with regards to commissions are as notorious and
dishonest as anything Sibe is doing.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes. Will set followups on crossposts of 3 of more
Paul Johnson
> Why don't people just choose not to watch movies if they don't agree with
> the price?
Why won't the studios produce something worth paying to see more than twice
a decade?
--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): ba...@ursine.ca
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dan Skunk
"Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:vmbdl3-...@ursine.ca...
> Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> > Why don't people just choose not to watch movies if they don't agree
with
> > the price?
>
> Why won't the studios produce something worth paying to see more than
twice
> a decade?
They would if they knew how?
Paul Johnson
> In article <marmelmm-362FD8...@urocyon.critter.net>, M.
> Mitchell Marmel <marm...@vrx.net> wrote:
>
>> I dunno. Having paid good coin for The Wall on LP, cassette and (Ghu
>> help me) 8-track, I'm a tad leary about shelling out for the CD version.
>
> I suppose, though I'd wager one could still legally get the wall on
> CD without paying full price (A used book store that also selled used
> CD comes to mind).
The CD store? Go one better, I bet there's few libraries out there that
have a CD section that don't have The Wall...
BR
So Paul is telling us he's watched a movie every decade? Anyway the "I
pirate because of quality" excuse is even lamer than all the others. Plus
you'd think that piratebay and others would naturally dry up if everything
was "crap".*
*The person who responded to me basically said that it was good enough to
pirate but not good enough to purchase. Hurray for diminishing taste.
BR
> The CD store? Go one better, I bet there's few libraries out there that
> have a CD section that don't have The Wall...
"go one better" == checking it out to listen to, while not retaining a
copy. Or was it "go one better" == "copyright infringement"? Kind of hard
to tell.
jarro...@gmail.com
Are you aware that when you watch a movie at a convention, if that
convention hasn't paid for the proper licensing to show movies to
public audiences, that you are considered pirating that?
If you see a music video at opening ceremonies with a certain song,
that song is also being pirated. Are you aware of that?
Pirating , as defined by the people who are trying to make the rules
here, isn't just about downloading some movie off a bittorrent. It's
about violating their little EULA's and FBI warnings and usership
licenses in ANY manner.
And I don't see very many cons ponying up to http://www.mplc.com/ to
run movies at anime conventions or scifi cons or furry cons.
So before you run around calling other people pirates, just be aware
that according to the MPAA, if you watch a public performance of a
movie without a license applied to that performance, you're a pirate
too.
Arr.
BR
> So before you run around calling other people pirates, just be aware
> that according to the MPAA, if you watch a public performance of a movie
> without a license applied to that performance, you're a pirate too.
Are you aware that we're talking about copyright? Something that has been
in existance long before there was a MPAA or an RIAA or even a BSA. So arr
yourself.
jarro...@gmail.com
Do you think these companies CARE about copyright? Do you think they
care about the individual artist? To them, copyright violation and
piracy are one in the same. If you're downloading it, watching it
outside the "home", or transferring it to your IPOD, they don't care.
They think you're breaking the law, and they want it to be counted as a
copyright infringement. In fact, they've gone and criminalized
Copyright infringement, via the DMCA.
The people that are trying to bring bittorrent down are the same people
who are trying to stop you from ripping your CDs to your Ipod, are
trying to stop you from burning a mix of songs you own, are trying to
make it so you can't record movies from cable onto a Tivo, and are
running around busting up non home uses of movies. They don't CARE
about Joe Furryartist, and they never will. They don't care about
Sibe, they don't care about the Curtis' , they don't care about me, and
they don't care about you. They care about dominance over their media
and their artists, and they care about the almighty buck.
If there was a way for them to make as much money with bittorrent as
they do with their 3rd edition rerelease of this flick that's 20 years
old, they'd be supporting it and all it entails, and they'd be
petitioning the US government to let it continue despite the piracy.
I'm against copyright infringement, but the people who are in charge of
defining the word "piracy" are WAY the flip out of control.
You don't believe me, check out that site I posted earlier. They
consider it a public exhibition when you invite a friend over to watch
a movie.
Rick Pikul
> Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>> Why don't people just choose not to watch movies if they don't agree with
>> the price?
>
> Why won't the studios produce something worth paying to see more than twice
> a decade?
Because there are enough people who will watch pretty pablum that it
isn't worth taking the risk of making anything else.
--
Phoenix
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> The people that are trying to bring bittorrent down are the same people
> who are trying to stop you from ripping your CDs to your Ipod, are
> trying to stop you from burning a mix of songs you own, are trying to
> make it so you can't record movies from cable onto a Tivo, and are
> running around busting up non home uses of movies.
Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers. Or remotely
disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent stuff
from going into the public domain.
BR
wrote:
> Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers. Or remotely
> disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent stuff
> from going into the public domain.
I hear both of you, and I'll point out that everything they're attempting
applies to THEIR stuff. It may not be right, but it only affects THEIR
stuff. As I pointed out many times in the past we already have a sytem for
change (several). Now when are people going to start using it, instead of
circumventing it through piracy?
BR
> Because there are enough people who will watch pretty pablum that it
> isn't worth taking the risk of making anything else.
One man's "pretty pablum" is another's masterpiece. Now when are we going
to start acknowledging that everyone is different, with all that implies,
and one isn't necessarily a bad person for being so.
jarro...@gmail.com
People don't believe in the system. They were largely against the
lengthening of copyrights back when Disney was pushing it, but big
money won. They were largely against the DMCA, but big money won.
There are two different ways to change this, one internal (by going to
see their movies and the like), and the other external (by voting and
electing congresspeople who will vote our way).
The external method has been tried, and frankly, once elected, these
guys do whatever they want and whatever they are paid to do. The
internal method works only if you don't want to ever see a movie, as
these companies have tied up the distribution chain.
Why do you think the RIAA is so pissed about MP3s? It's not about the
easy transfer.. it's about the fact that they can't control the
artists. It's not the "Music Policing Group of America." It's the
"Recording Industry Association of America." They're losing a large
new fresh set of artists. That pisses them off. They'd rather shut it
all down than allow indie artists to avoid their labels.
Did you know when Itunes started, the RIAA wanted a royalty on EVERY
song to be split amongst its members? That includes the indie songs
that came through CDBaby.
My point is, people have tried to do things legally. They were
ignored. Now they're doing things their way. And my over arching
point is that the MPAA has no business influencing police officers in
another municipality to act in a manner solely designed to harass and
intimidate people. Come on, if this was organized crime influencing
the police to shake down an entire business because of a rival's card
game in the back of the building, there would be special prosecutors
and such going after the influence peddlers.
Because it's the MPAA, and a big business, it should be NO different.
Brian O'Connell
you're basically a pirate.
<jarro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149597743.2...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
BR
> BR wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:02:50 +0000, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers. Or remotely
>> > disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent
>> > stuff from going into the public domain.
>>
>> I hear both of you, and I'll point out that everything they're
>> attempting applies to THEIR stuff. It may not be right, but it only
>> affects THEIR stuff. As I pointed out many times in the past we already
>> have a sytem for change (several). Now when are people going to start
>> using it, instead of circumventing it through piracy?
>
> People don't believe in the system. They were largely against the
> lengthening of copyrights back when Disney was pushing it, but big money
> won. They were largely against the DMCA, but big money won.
>
> There are two different ways to change this, one internal (by going to
> see their movies and the like), and the other external (by voting and
> electing congresspeople who will vote our way).
Considering the overall apathy the public at large has towards government.
Why should anyone be surprised.
> The external method has been tried, and frankly, once elected, these
> guys do whatever they want and whatever they are paid to do. The
> internal method works only if you don't want to ever see a movie, as
> these companies have tied up the distribution chain.
Hey Jarrod! I'd like to introduce you to Mr "The new and improved business
model". Apparently he doesn't share your cynical "tied up" viewpoint.
> Why do you think the RIAA is so pissed about MP3s? It's not about the
> easy transfer.. it's about the fact that they can't control the artists.
> It's not the "Music Policing Group of America." It's the "Recording
> Industry Association of America." They're losing a large new fresh set
> of artists. That pisses them off. They'd rather shut it all down than
> allow indie artists to avoid their labels.
>
> Did you know when Itunes started, the RIAA wanted a royalty on EVERY
> song to be split amongst its members? That includes the indie songs
> that came through CDBaby.
Amd you'll notice that it didn't go through.
> My point is, people have tried to do things legally. They were ignored.
> Now they're doing things their way. And my over arching point is that
> the MPAA has no business influencing police officers in another
> municipality to act in a manner solely designed to harass and intimidate
> people. Come on, if this was organized crime influencing the police to
> shake down an entire business because of a rival's card game in the back
> of the building, there would be special prosecutors and such going after
> the influence peddlers.
I have my doubts about how vigerously the legal route was being pursued by
those now doing it "their way" (not necessarily being the same people).
Now in keeping with your "shake down" argument. Are you really going to
say in public that the majority of the stuff on piratebay didn't belong to
the member companies of the MPAA/RIAA?
> Because it's the MPAA, and a big business, it should be NO different.
Copyright is for everyone!
jarro...@comcast.net
BR wrote:
>
>
> > Because it's the MPAA, and a big business, it should be NO different.
>
> Copyright is for everyone!
Yeah right.
Copyright is for everyone. But have you tried enforcing your
copyrights in court when it's violated? Have you?
Copyright is for everyone, but enforcement is for the rich, and the
rich only. Don't even think you're as protected for your work as a
popular author, singer, or artist. You're not. A major company can
steal your work and outlawyer you into submission. Your case wouldn't
even get to be heard on the merits.
Copyright stopped being enforced for everyone equally a long time ago.
Now it's just a big bat to bash things with. It, Trademark, and
Patents are now tools of the rich to stay rich, and to stifle
competition. That's why when you get into a business that involves IP
, you're pretty much expected to come out with a few patents (for
yourself) every year.
If you want to believe that copyright is for everyone, go ahead.
Believe that. It's true for the most part. But if you think that a
court would fight for you, would give you massive search warrants to
search ISPs, and would take your side against someone with more money..
forget it. Copyright stopped being about "A man and his writings" a
long time ago.
Allen Kitchen
> I hear both of you, and I'll point out that everything they're attempting
> applies to THEIR stuff.
But it's NOT their stuff. I paid for it. It is mine. I can resell it.
I can destroy it. I can dupe it for my own loss-prevention. I can
make a mix of music or video for a party. I can put it into other
machines to play. These are all legal - every one of them. The only
thing I'm not allowed to do is duplicate their product for other people,
for money or for free.
Ownership of the product - by trade law - is mine. And what I do with
it is my business unless I'm trying to reproduce their works for other
people. I have the receipt - the DVD or the CD belongs to me. And
whether I rip it into my laptop so I can watch on the plane or dupe it
so the kids can't destroy the original disc, it's not the MPAA's or the
RIAA's biz in the slightest.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:02:50 +0000, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> wrote:
>
>> Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers. Or remotely
>> disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent stuff
>> from going into the public domain.
>
> I hear both of you, and I'll point out that everything they're attempting
> applies to THEIR stuff. It may not be right, but it only affects THEIR
> stuff.
Disabiling players that they don't like affects my stuff, I own my player.
Subverting the right of first sale (that is preventing resale of
items) affects my stuff as it prevents me from selling media I own.
> As I pointed out many times in the past we already have a sytem for
> change (several). Now when are people going to start using it, instead of
> circumventing it through piracy?
If the system for change was a workable system then yes it would be a
valid argument. However with regards to copyright our law makers are
effectively captured by the forces of big media. This is via the
combined effects of corprate lobbists and the undue influence that
they have by having unique access to the media.
( Free hint about Rupid Murdoc, his "fair and balenced" news reporting
doesn't support the Republicans because he is right wing, his news
reporting supports the Republicans because the republicans support
him. If the Democrats offered him a better deal he would jump ship)
Dan Skunk
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.05...@comcast.net...
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:01:30 -0400, Dan Skunk wrote:
> *The person who responded to me basically said that it was good enough to
> pirate but not good enough to purchase. Hurray for diminishing taste.
That sounds reasonable. The price of something has a lot to do with a
decision to purchase it.
Rick Pikul
If someone likes what Holywood puts out, that's fine. Pablum itself was
a very good food for its intended consumers.
My point was that there is no reason for Holywood to try anything
different: They can make plenty of money at far less risk.
--
Phoenix
Rick Pikul
wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006 16:06:38 -0700, jarro...@gmail.com <jarro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The people that are trying to bring bittorrent down are the same people
>> who are trying to stop you from ripping your CDs to your Ipod, are
>> trying to stop you from burning a mix of songs you own, are trying to
>> make it so you can't record movies from cable onto a Tivo, and are
>> running around busting up non home uses of movies.
>
> Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers.
The good news on that one is that it is Philips that grabbed the patent,
and given their history it looks like they are pulling a grab and bury.
(Uses a Philips DVD player, which can skip the FBI warning and can be
made region-free with seven button presses.)
Or remotely
> disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent stuff
> from going into the public domain.
--
Phoenix
d12s...@gmail.com
Hollywood used to consider VCR as nothing more than a tool to steal
their product, they tried to fight it, they lost, just because
Hollywood hates something does not mean it's illegal, even if something
is illegal now, it may be legal in the future, law should reflect the
reality, not the other way around, you can continue to whine and refuse
to accept the change of technology, business environment and the larger
society, or you can mobilize youself to do some constructive things to
accomodate the changes, it's not whether you should or should not sit
down and talk with your nemesis, even if you hate your enemy to the
gut, to survive means you have to talk and "accomodate" the new
reality, and in the process of doing it, try to find some new ways to
make use of the new opportunity, there is not iron law dicatating what
is right and what is not right, attitude changes, people themselves
change, society as a whole changes, if you can't evolve, you die, the
technology will always be there, so are people willing to exploit the
technoloy, Hollywood can't make them disappear, not can the federal
government.
BR
> Yeah right.
>
> Copyright is for everyone. But have you tried enforcing your copyrights
> in court when it's violated? Have you?
>
> Copyright is for everyone, but enforcement is for the rich, and the rich
> only. Don't even think you're as protected for your work as a popular
> author, singer, or artist. You're not. A major company can steal your
> work and outlawyer you into submission. Your case wouldn't even get to
> be heard on the merits.
Uh huh. The joys of being a cynic. So you're telling us that every
copyright case has been won in favour of the "rich". Right? Are you
certain you want to take such a easily defensible position?
BR
wrote:
> If the system for change was a workable system then yes it would be a
> valid argument. However with regards to copyright our law makers are
> effectively captured by the forces of big media. This is via the
> combined effects of corprate lobbists and the undue influence that they
> have by having unique access to the media.
Interesting how one sytem (the monetary vote) get's excluded. You may
think that the legal course is corrupt, but the other one is still in
place and functional. Now once agin, when are people going to start using
it, instead of bypassing it?
BR
> But it's NOT their stuff. I paid for it. It is mine. I can resell it.
> I can destroy it. I can dupe it for my own loss-prevention. I can
> make a mix of music or video for a party. I can put it into other
> machines to play. These are all legal - every one of them. The only
> thing I'm not allowed to do is duplicate their product for other people,
> for money or for free.
Well "their" may be a bit strong. Nevertheless how does their actions
affect something you created?*
*Now if that disabled player refuses to play content you created, then
yeah they've overstepped their bounds.
jarro...@comcast.net
Many players,BR, now DO refuse to play DVDs that are not properly
signed by a major movie company. (Well, actually, they refuse to play
"unencrypted or region free DVDs" .. and that includes this little
soccer instructional video I created using iMovie, a Camcorder,
Garageband, and iDVD)
It simply won't play on a lot of DVD players.
Allen Kitchen
> Well "their" may be a bit strong. Nevertheless how does their actions
> affect something you created?*
>
> *Now if that disabled player refuses to play content you created, then
> yeah they've overstepped their bounds.
So let's say I buy a new movie and put it into my 1000$ HDDVD player.
Boom, it won't run. Why won't it play? It won't play because the Film
Industry somehow decided that my player was involved in piracy, so the
serial number is on the BLACK LIST embedded in every new movie that
comes out. Will I be able to remove my serial number from this list?
Is there any way to contest the black listing? Will I be offered an
exchange for a disc that will work on my player? Will anyone be
ensuring that the MPAA doesn't make gross errors like this? Will I be
offered a refund for my now-useless 1000$ player (and 30$ disc)? No to
all of the above. (Due process is soooo last century...)
They do, can and will turn off YOUR property if they feel like it. What
I described above is written down in the specs for HDDVD, easily found
on the web. The reason HDDVD takes so long to boot is the serial number
check and unit disabling at the very beginning. You bought the disc and
you bought the player, but due to a clerical error (and only an infant
believes they never happen) all your gear is turned off by someone else
who doesn't own it and doesn't have to answer to anyone for doing so.
If someone kicked your player and broke it, you could bring them up on
charges. But the MPAA can "break" your gear without any legal process
and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Welcome to the future - your receipt is now meaningless.
Allen Kitchen (Shockwave)
Paul Johnson
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:58:25 -0700, Brian O'Connell wrote:
>
>> (b) Their claim, much like the oil industry's (you should know this by
>> now), is that their prices are based upon what the consumer is willing
>> to spend, not what they're actually willing to price it at, based on
>> their actual cost.
>
> And how many real-world goods and services are priced otherwise?
Car insurance comes to mind immediately, where the people least and most
likely to have an accident are the ones that will pay the highest rates.
Case in point, I've never had an accident that I was at fault for, and no
tickets and I drive an aging, decade old Kia Sportage 4x4. I pay four
times as much for insurance as my mom, who has several accidents and
tickets and drives a brand new car.
Strangely enough, my insurance went *down* after I got rear-ended by some
jackass with Californian plates. I wish DMV wouldn't give everyone with
enough money a license there and do some testing that would pass muster in
other states...having to deal with an out-of-state insurance company and a
body shop is no picnic.
Paul Johnson
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:40:31 -0700, jarrodhenry wrote:
>
>> So before you run around calling other people pirates, just be aware
>> that according to the MPAA, if you watch a public performance of a movie
>> without a license applied to that performance, you're a pirate too.
>
> Are you aware that we're talking about copyright?
Yes, he is aware, and that really is how copyright works here in practice.
The people making the rules, in their perfect world, would have you ponying
up money every time you ever hear or see their work, whether or not you
voluntarily viewed/heard it, and whether or not you've already paid.
Copyright law is slowly taking the "fair" out of "fair use" in North
America, and instead of blindly defending copyright law, perhaps copyright
holders should be asking for reform to make the system harder to be abused
by copyright holders.
Paul Johnson
Copyright, in it's original form, was pretty cut and dry, and difficult to
abuse from the copyright holder's propsective.
Paul Johnson
> On 5 Jun 2006 16:06:38 -0700, jarro...@gmail.com
> <jarro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The people that are trying to bring bittorrent down are the same people
>> who are trying to stop you from ripping your CDs to your Ipod, are
>> trying to stop you from burning a mix of songs you own, are trying to
>> make it so you can't record movies from cable onto a Tivo, and are
>> running around busting up non home uses of movies.
>
> Or stopping peoplke fast forwarding threw trailers. Or remotely
> disabiling players that they don't like. Or lobbying to prevent stuff
> from going into the public domain.
Or arguing open source software causes economic harm.
Paul Johnson
Please trim your quotes.
Brian O'Connell wrote:
> Don't forget, if you sing happy birthday without giving Caesar his tithe,
> you're basically a pirate.
Or for that matter, any of the other ASCAP-owned songs that can be found in
most music classrooms and Boy Scout Songbooks in north america...
Paul Johnson
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:01:30 -0400, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>
>> "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
>> news:vmbdl3-...@ursine.ca...
>>> Dan Skunk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why don't people just choose not to watch movies if they don't agree
>>>> with the price?
>
>
>>> Why won't the studios produce something worth paying to see more than
>>> twice a decade?
>>
>> They would if they knew how?
>
> So Paul is telling us he's watched a movie every decade? Anyway the "I
> pirate because of quality" excuse is even lamer than all the others. Plus
> you'd think that piratebay and others would naturally dry up if everything
> was "crap".*
>
>
> *The person who responded to me basically said that it was good enough to
> pirate but not good enough to purchase. Hurray for diminishing taste.
A lot of movies would be worth buying if they hit the dollar bin at WalMart
instead of being released in the theaters to start with. Pretty much
everything in the last year except for Over the Hedge falls into that
category.
Paul Johnson
That goes with pretty much any court case. If you want to win, you have to
be prepared to win a war of attrition. This goes from everything from
suing for damages because some Californian asshole hits you head-on on a
driving the wrong way on a one-way street and doesn't have insurance or
when Wells Fargo lets someone restricted by court order from accessing your
account clean the whole thing out and claims it's not their fault because
they lost the court order. Neither gave in until it was more expensive for
them to deal with me than it was to pay me off.
Jim Lee Jr.
wrote:
> Copyright, in it's original form, was pretty cut and dry, and difficult to
> abuse from the copyright holder's propsective.
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): ba...@ursine.ca
> Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber
You misspelled "its."
Jim Lee Jr.
wrote:
> Strangely enough, my insurance went *down* after I got rear-ended by some
> jackass with Californian plates. I wish DMV wouldn't give everyone with
> enough money a license there and do some testing that would pass muster in
> other states...having to deal with an out-of-state insurance company and a
> body shop is no picnic.
So all Californians are jackasses, Boo Boo?
BR
> Welcome to the future - your receipt is now meaningless.
Good questions however two things. One this is theoretical, and the
infrastructure needs to be in place (much like the broadcast flag).
Allen Kitchen
Alas, it's not theory. ALL HDDVD drives have the "do not work" serial
number thing built into them. This is listed in their own spec sheets -
I've read them. It's not a theory, it's an actual product that you can
buy today (in Japan, at least). And if there's a problem, then there's
no appeal and no recourse available to you. The MPAA now has the power
to turn off your gear anytime they feel like it.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Paul Johnson
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:18:58 -0700, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
> declaimed the following in alt.fan.furry:
>
>>
>> Car insurance comes to mind immediately, where the people least and most
>> likely to have an accident are the ones that will pay the highest rates.
>> Case in point, I've never had an accident that I was at fault for, and no
>> tickets and I drive an aging, decade old Kia Sportage 4x4. I pay four
>> times as much for insurance as my mom, who has several accidents and
>> tickets and drives a brand new car.
>>
> I'd suspect that the age of the vehicle has some effect -- That new
> car probably has air bags all over, the Kia would be lucky to have
> one...
Right, no airbags. I don't plan on ever owning a vehicle with them, those
things kill more lives than they save, and only work most effectively if
you drive drunk (I don't). In a perfect world, instead of airbags which
only save drunks, there would be a steel spike that would impale the driver
upon impact. If you make accidents guaranteed nonsurvivable for the driver
at fault, everyone would drive better.
On the other hand, my mom owned it before I bought it from her and her rates
went *up* when she got a new one, and she had really, really low rates when
she owned it.
> Large cars tend to get lower rates too, on the belief that they
> take less fatal damage in an accident -- got a high school student that
> wants a car? Buy the $20k souped up compact -- for yourself! Give them
> your expensive $40K land yacht; the rates on it will be lower.
And never find a parking space for it in Portland.
> I've been with State Farm for (counting my school years when I was
> an accessory on my father's policy) 30 years... I've managed to qualify
> for their top-rating, which discounts my policy 50%.
I didn't go with State Farm because they wanted $1400 for 6 months of
$20,000 liability, the minimum required by state law. I pay well under
half that with Country Companies, and it's still a ripoff. I don't get
into accidents and I don't get tickets: Paying anything is a ripoff.
Paul Johnson
Unless proven otherwise, yes. Live around them sometime, you'd understand.