Suprnova is dead and I'm happy

[blah]

Finally a win for the good guys

The illegal file sharing site suprnova.org has been shutdown.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._suprnova_dc_6
Illegal file sharing is tantamount to theft so we should be glad this online piracy site is finished.

[Zword]

So? There will always be/come another wannabe supernova thingy. There is no stopping it MUWAHAHA

[xtrasyn]

How can a guy that is paid to lead the MPAA anti piracy division say p2p'ers are "parasites leeching off the creative activity of others."

That is so stunning.

[JammyJim]

if by "good guys" you mean a massive faceless corporate identity which makes millions of dollars a year profit then yes

it is indeed a 'win'

not that it means much. the 'war' is far from over and inevitably filesharing will 'triumph'

[xtrasyn]

Ehhm JJ now that I see yuor sig etc... Wasn't flashing ads considered a no-no?

[JammyJim]

its called admin abuse. and its also been there for a considerable length of time (try erm....a year nearly)

[Sunday8pm]

It isn't piracy they are trying to conquer, it's the fact that there is no profit being made by this new technology fad called p2p.

They already killed napster so they could successfully launch I-pod and it's various other music selling sites... they are merely trying to kill bittorrent and it's clones purely so people will start paying for an 'official' torrent that they'll make.

They aren't interested in fighting piracy, they are just interested in corporatizing a new business opportunity in the sharing of movies/videos. They'll make us pay to host movies/shows etc for other's to download off of us that they are paying for.

Or does anyone not see that?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Or does anyone not see that?

You seem to be arguing "They're not interested in fighting piracy...they're interested in fighting piracy!" which seems a banal truism. The thing they want, ultimately, is profit. They believe the only way keep this profitability is to maintain a rigid control of the distribution of their products. By shutting down Suprnova they are trying to protect their IP. Yes, future distribution channels are part of this. But they are trying to defend their profitibility right now too. So yeah you're right, but you're also stating the obvious.

And as to the original poster : Either banned for trolling or get a clue plz.

[skiddy]

In the spirit of the above line, "And you are who?"

[Embroglio]

there are loads of other sites just as good, as well as dozens of private trackers that are even better, suprnova going down really doesn't make much difference at all.

[1-X]

all blah's other posts were in this thread over a year ago. And yes, it's an anti-filesharing thread, the sad twat.

[Hicks]

For everyone they kill, two more will spring up in its place.

Shame but hardly the end of the world there's several other just as good torrent sites out there.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by 1-X

all blah's other posts were in this thread over a year ago. And yes, it's an anti-filesharing thread, the sad twat.

Probably someone elses troll account.

[xtrasyn]

Or the RIAA trying to find out if we hold eachothers' files behind the bikeshed.

[I am Idler]

I'd like to see them close Piratebay, hah!

also, blah, do you really believe that movies/artists/game-developers who'se games are being torrented are either losing money or not making a cash surplus on their projects?

the "issue" is not that piracy is destroying business, the claim is that piracy is stopping them from making MORE millions of dollars. pure and simple.

but on another note: the account "blah" is probably hired by the RIAA or the MPAA or any other various anti piracy organization that fully believes that this is actually a just casue, to spread anti-torrent propaganda.

but let me tell you this you ****nut, I torrent several gigs every day, music, movies, games, the lot.
and still, what I like, I buy.
What I dont like.. I dont buy.

So basicly, no money lost.. but its not like piracy will ever be conquered and its not like the record lables and various other insitutions will ever have to only buy 5 ferraris a week compared, compared to the 150 they can currently buy.

did you know that a average english football player makes £10k a week?
I suggest you start a usefull battle against overpaid sportsmen, hunder in Kenya, America, PETA, or freckles. And not fat internet kids who download stuff for a moments entertainment.

but for a final note: torrentsites arent illegal, they're just a third party that cant be held legally responsible for the fileshatring itself, amazingly to what everyone else believes.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by blah

Finally a win for the good guys

The illegal file sharing site suprnova.org has been shutdown.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._suprnova_dc_6
Illegal file sharing is tantamount to theft so we should be glad this online piracy site is finished.

As a long standing 'thief' I take exception to your suggestion we all should be glad of the disappearence of Suprnova. Why are you so pleased that a website dedicated to sharing of copyright files, admittedly free of charge' when there are others making money for doing the same thing ? They are the ones that are stealing. (www.suprnova.com , www.suprnova.net to name but 2)

A lot of the films I have downloaded and watched have been utter shite and if I had paid money to see them at the cinema I would have been very unhappy about being ripped off. The Day After Tomorrow and Fahrenheit 9/11 spring to mind. Lots of hype but nothing of substance. The decent films I have downloaded I have bought on DVD thus boosting the profits of the people who are busy letting you blow them for free.

Instead of jumping all over their grave, improve your product and MAKE people want to pay money.

File sharing is a reaction to the greed of film and music companies attempting to give us the consumer shit.

~Vaio~

Down to 2 cans of Guinness

[Vaio]

Oh and Blah, you are a TWAT !

~Vaio~

[Androme]

http://www.thepiratebay.org/
http://www.btefnet.net/
http://www.torrentreactor.to/
http://www.torrentazos.com/
http://oink.me.uk/
http://www.bi-torrent.com/
http://www.elitetorrents.org/
http://www.lokitorrent.com/

[Androme]

Btw, blah, why don't you try to conque warez sites? They're offering software that's worth £500+ to millions of people yet you're going WOOHOO for stopping a £1/£2 single - £8 (yes, £8 albums online now) free alternative? WELL CALL ME BUSH I'VE SAVED THE WORLD

The amount saved by suprnova closing down = 100 warez software downloads - in other words, WORTH SQUAT ALL. Idiots these days, think they know it all

And in the event of a MCPAA monkey stepping on my door-step, I have 2 large 128 disc holding cases verifying I own everything on my PC - ah well

[wu_trax]

i think i wouldn't even download anything if tv-station would just stream it into the net. i'd probably even watch the commercials. My problem is that i don't want to watch that translated crap they show on television anymore. For TV-shows is VERY bad, because they don't put any effort at all into it, but since i started watching everything in english even movies don't work anymore. The only exception was Life of Brian which was a big dissapointment for me when i watched it in the original for the first time a few weeks ago.


This is not on the topic, is it?

[melandron]

personally i believe what needs to happen is that the RAA et al. Need to wake up and realise they can't stop this revolution in the way that things will be distributed and instead find a way to embrace it.

Targeted taxation policies on internet providers (proportional of course) that end up going towards the creative outputs of the material being traded. There have also been many studies (it's christmas eve and i am drunk so forgive me if i don't provide extensive lists) on how other means can be used to fund creative output that is unaffected by how the media is traided and transfered.

It's time for the big publishers to start living in the digital age and start pushing for meaningful legislation that dosen't mean that the little guy is made the criminal but that ways are found to harmonise technology and culture,.

my drunken 2p

[Vaio]

I'm with Melandron. TV as we know it is dead. They need to adjust to reality

~Vaio~

f'k no guinness. Only the Export left.

[Apothos]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Oh and Blah, you are a TWAT ! And a Merry Christmas.

[Ebany]

There was an artice on the BBC NEws site a bit ago about how someone is developing a means to use torrents and filesharing in general as a means of distributing files and still making people pay. I havent a clue how it would work,but they will certainly want to kill free file sharing before trying to get this new thing off the ground.

[Structural Integrity]

Although I understand that downloads seem to directly affect sales, I'm convinced that they result in more profit.
A lot of content found on these websites is unknown to a lot of the public. Most trailers of movies found on these websites aren't even shown on TV here. Most games on those trackers I have never heard of. The result of your content being on a well-known tracker is that your product gets better known among the public.
The most obvious result of downloading is a fall in direct sales (of movie tickets, DVD sales). However, no one accounts for the more people that know about the product, thus the more potential buyers of the product.

And that's where I believe the crap hits the fan for the most commercial makers of these products. The effect of traditional marketting is diminished because even if you do not market your product, it will get known to most of the potential buyers through these trackers. So the lesser-known product, will have the same potential buyer base as the well-known product. It will have equal chances of being bought. So now it boils down to only one thing: quality.
So if Hollywood makes another shit movie, it doesn't matter how much marketting they throw against it. Most of the potential buyers will know it's a crap movie even before they set a foot in the cinema.

Having a successfull product means having a better product, the only product or a better known product.
In the case of movies, there are plenty of movies around, so you don't have the only product.
With the rise of P2P the effect of having a better-known product is diminished.
So that only leaves quality.

Perfect control over the distribution of the product in order to restore the position of traditional marketting. That is what I think those associations try to achieve with their attacks on P2P. I believe the associations are affraid that they can not guarantee the quality in the future and that they might start to lose their currently dominant position in their industry.

But hey, who cares?
BTW, the marketting 101 series on GameDev.net are

[Embroglio]

SI that was a fantastic post, although the hollywood marketing still gets the better of most people here

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You seem to be arguing "They're not interested in fighting piracy...they're interested in fighting piracy!" which seems a banal truism.

They make more money than god and I'm sure the lawyer's fees exceed the losses they make to piracy in their current state.

They are interested in fighting a free enterprise they wish to capitalize on, now that the market has been shown to be effective and in demand and that the software and hardware is capable (hey no R&D or Market research costs incurred!), by feigning that it's the fight against piracy they are interested in.

They're not interested in fighting piracy, they are interested in using what they can to capitalize on new industries when they pop up underneath their feet before them.

[melandron]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

With the rise of P2P the effect of having a better-known product is diminished.
So that only leaves quality.

Popular things are too often not quality things.. who's to decide what designates quality, artistic forms still have to produce crap just so that other, better "quality" output is recognised.

Alot of the top grossing films are just plain shit when it comes to some "quality" and yet they have to have some kind of merit that no one could quantify..

If your argument is true, would it not lead to less experimentation as even the smallest studios would be looking for sure fire hits just to meet the bottom line and would be less willing to take risks?

Hmmm not really a coherent ramble there.

sorry.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by melandron

Popular things are too often not quality things.. who's to decide what designates quality, artistic forms still have to produce crap just so that other, better "quality" output is recognised.

Alot of the top grossing films are just plain shit when it comes to some "quality" and yet they have to have some kind of merit that no one could quantify..

If your argument is true, would it not lead to less experimentation as even the smallest studios would be looking for sure fire hits just to meet the bottom line and would be less willing to take risks?

Hmmm not really a coherent ramble there.

sorry.

what? no.

his point is that top grossing but shitty films have the edge of marketing which is negated with P2P. therefore, films become popular because they are good, not because they come from a big stable.

[Madina]

Ok I do a lot of downloading of music (a few films here and there etc.). But I do buy albums that I like (most of the time!) But if things weren't so ****ing expensive it would be alright.

This may be a shock to some of you but where I work at the moment we need to search for items, when we look items up (lets say Celtic Chillout) it comes up with how much they paid the supplier for the CD. And more times than not it is £5 and under. So the mark up that shops put on it are insane. Its not down to the record companies etc. as they are selling them to the stores at a decent price.

So people who have said 'Why should I help an artist make millions more this year' that it isn't the record labels being gits. Its the high street stores.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

They make more money than god and I'm sure the lawyer's fees exceed the losses they make to piracy in their current state.

No-one actually knows how much they lose to piracy. I personally imagine it's very very limited - they overestimate how much disposable income people have who pirate. A hell of a lot of piracy is done by people on relatively low incomes who don't go and invest the money saved in solid gold houses. But the record companies believe it's much higher. And it's practically irrelevent how much money they make. That's the point of capitalism. You never make enough money.

And I say again, fighting Suprnova so they can sell us stuff via P2P is fighting piracy.

They're not interested in fighting piracy, they are interested in using what they can to capitalize on new industries when they pop up underneath their feet before them.

Repeating this ad nausea doesn't actually a build a case you know.

Originally Posted by Madina

So people who have said 'Why should I help an artist make millions more this year' that it isn't the record labels being gits. Its the high street stores.

People who go on about the record companies being greedy / evil are missing the point completely. The whole current distribution system for CDs / DVDs / etc is totally outdated. Since we can transfer an audio CDs worth of information in a few seconds at a very low (and ever decreasing, in real-terms) cost why should we rely on a production / retail model? It's like we invented matter transportation but still rely on trucks to move freight around because, you know, what about the poor truckers?

I'm not interested particularly on who makes loads of money out of the £14 for a CD. It's not really an issue of greed (on anyone's behalf). The high street shops have to pay pretty damn high rents, and then they have stock costs, staff, etc. But once again, they are not necessary. HMV et al can go out of business (or scale back) and we can use the land they occupy on something more useful.

[Sunday8pm]

Via their own p2p client, which isn't pirated, cause they don't have one, cause if they coded one they'd want to make sure that the current free source p2p software out there is outlawed first.

So their real fight is to claim p2p software as their own, which isn't fighting piracy, it's fighting freesource.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Via their own p2p client, which isn't pirated, cause they don't have one, cause if they coded one they'd want to make sure that the current free source p2p software out there is outlawed first.

So their real fight is to claim p2p software as their own, which isn't fighting piracy, it's fighting freesource.

They're not targeting BT, they're targeting the BT sites which make available for download the IP of the relevent companies. If they tried to target BT, they might have quite a lot of opposition from the industry, because many companies use it for legal purposes.

You can't compare it with Napster or similar, because Napster was both the program and the supplier, and given what's happening at the moment, it's fairly clear that the latter was the target, and not the former as you seem to believe.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Via their own p2p client, which isn't pirated, cause they don't have one, cause if they coded one they'd want to make sure that the current free source p2p software out there is outlawed first.

So their real fight is to claim p2p software as their own, which isn't fighting piracy, it's fighting freesource.

Isn't it called Open Source ?

Under the Open Source licence there is nothing stopping the RIAA from writing their own BitTorrent client using the original code..

~Vaio~

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Isn't it called Open Source ?

Under the Open Source licence there is nothing stopping the RIAA from writing their own BitTorrent client using the original code..

~Vaio~

I don't think that was his point; he was saying that the RIAA/MPAA would attack any instance of a competing potential distribution mechanism as a distribution mechanism, and then supplant it with their own.

Of course, the post didn't have the best syntax, so you never know.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think that was his point; he was saying that the RIAA/MPAA would attack any instance of a competing potential distribution mechanism as a distribution mechanism, and then supplant it with their own.

Of course, the post didn't have the best syntax, so you never know.

But why would they need to ?

~Vaio~

[Inferno]

I think that I agree with all those who are against blah. But we have consider those who download from those sites and not buy what they like.

As all of those with half a mind said, its all down to quality. Its quality which matters when money isnt an issue.

[Weeks]

What can i use instead of suprnova now?
isohunt.com?

[Vaio]

Get a premium news service if you download music. You won't get the stuff you want in a hurry but you will get quite a lot of good stuff.

~Vaio~

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

Perfect control over the distribution of the product in order to restore the position of traditional marketing. That is what I think those associations try to achieve with their attacks on P2P. I believe the associations are afraid that they can not guarantee the quality in the future and that they might start to lose their currently dominant position in their industry.

The most sensible thing said in years on filesharing and antiglobalism in one go.

[Boogster]

I walk into a shop and take a cd without paying. I play the cd at home. I do not buy the cd.
I have stolen it.

I download HalfLife 2 and play it, experiencing no major problems - I will not buy it. Why would I?
I have stolen it.

No?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

No?

No. You can't equate no sale = stolen. As I've said elsewhere, if that was the case then a bad review would be counting as "stealing" since it reduces sales.

Do you think people who read newspapers which have been left on the train are thieves too? If someone leaves a copy of the Independent on the tube and I read it, I'm definitely not going to buy it again that day, but it'd seem bizarre to say I've "stolen" it.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

..

who will buy products if they could get nearly the same for free?

[wu_trax]

lokitorrent is also gone now
i guess their legal case didn't work out after all

[wu_trax]

yes, sorry, i saw vaio's new thread after i worte this

[pig]

supranova was shit anyway better bittorrent sites

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

lokitorrent is also gone now
i guess their legal case didn't work out after all

The owner of Loki ran away with the money collected to face the lawsuit from the RIAA. Dirty little bastard, no?

[noah02]

I use Winmix and i dont know if its illegal or not coz i aint switched on like the rest of you but I download a film watch it then if i like it a buy it not then i dont.
Look at resident evil 2 if i hadnt of downloaded that down for free i would have ended up with another crap dvd in my collection.

[flapjack]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I walk into a shop and take a cd without paying. I play the cd at home. I do not buy the cd.
I have stolen it.

I download HalfLife 2 and play it, experiencing no major problems - I will not buy it. Why would I?
I have stolen it.

No?

I normally download a lot of freeware software and then burn it, but in this case.

I'd download HL2 and play it for a bit, if I like I'd go out and buy it, because I don't want to have loads of illegal shit lying around, just in case and because a lot of games feature all kinds of protection system now-a-days, such as the product keys.

Right now, I'm prolly gonna buy HL2 as soon as I get some more RAM into this box, since I've played it several times and liked it.