Poo

[Vaio]

www.lokitorrent.com

Bunch of Arse.

~Vaio~

[meglamaniac]

Yeah well, i've took a step away as soon as I saw they were getting sued.
Damn glad I never donated to the "save the site" fund, as I bet that money is now winging it's way straight to the MPAA.

[noah02]

Internet Gateway Service



The page or file you have requested has content which is not allowed according to MoD Security Policy. This could be for a number of reasons - but for your guidance it may be because:

The site allows you to release information from MoD Networks without a User Sanctioned Release Mechanism.
e.g.. www.hotmail.com, Lycos e-mail links, Yahoo e-mail links etc


Damn armynet

[meglamaniac]

The Army owns you.
Especially your arse.

[djbass]

honestly they make me laugh with all this we are l33ter than you hacker attitude the MPAA has taken, its like having parents that want to think they're cool by acting that way.

[meglamaniac]

I especially like the "There are websites providing legal downloads" bit.
Excuse me MPAA? Are you not the Motion Picture Ass. of America? So where are these legal motion picture download sites then?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I especially like the "There are websites providing legal downloads" bit.
Excuse me MPAA? Are you not the Motion Picture Ass. of America? So where are these legal motion picture download sites then?

Oooooh I read that as illegal download sites and this is not one of them because it's now been shut down.
Silly me.

[wu_trax]

why can't they host the damn sites in Cuba or something? filesharing is communism, Castro must love this

[noah02]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

The Army owns you.
Especially your arse.

maybe.

[I am Idler]

I suggest we all move on to Piratebay.

unlike American hipocrites, the lovely swedes have court rulings saying the excact opposite of the american verdict, so the MPAA threats are utter useless on them.

also:

The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity.

have they actually proven this ? Or is it just a "lie" that the gullible amongst us actually believe.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

have they actually proven this ? Or is it just a "lie" that the gullible amongst us actually believe.

It is poppycock.

Ive read many a good article in mainstream magazines about how the opposite is true in many cases. Its simply the fact that MPAA cant move with the technology and is trying to make as much money as possible and anyone else who robs us of our money is thieves. One rule for them, and another rule for others....

[CjC]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

have they actually proven this ? Or is it just a "lie" that the gullible amongst us actually believe.

Yeah they are obviously confusing the word "Creativity" with "Excessive Profit"

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Hacker's Manifest

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers.

I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed up. Not because it doesn't like me...Or feels threatened by me... Or thinks I'm a smart ass... Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...

Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike. And then it happened... A door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addicts veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found.

We've been spoon-fed baby food at School when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now, the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us Criminals. We seek after knowledge, and you call us Criminals.

We exist without skin colour, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us Criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat and lie to us, and try and make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the Criminals.

Yes I am a Criminal, my crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

.

[JonnyBGood]

What sort of utter faggot wrote that?

[Stew]

It's "The Hackers Manifest".
Clearly I missed some bits out, namely the bits about hacking.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm looking for slightly more than the title of your article you halfwitted jackass.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

you halfwitted jackass.

I don't know who wrote it, "The Mentor" maybe?

Clicky

Part of it is used in the film "Hackers".

[Vaio]

The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity..

That makes me laugh, how can they accuse file sharers of stifling creativity when the majority of Hollywood's output has been utter shite since they started making films ?

~Vaio~

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Vaio

That makes me laugh, how can they accuse file sharers of stifling creativity when the majority of Hollywood's output has been utter shite since they started making films ?

~Vaio~

Yeah, and the hard-working bit is probably shite too. HAHA!!

[BesigedB]

The money will be making its way to a high interest savings account rather than the MPAA.

[Boogster]

Frankly, it is stealing. You can at least be honest enough to admit that.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Frankly, it is stealing. You can at least be honest enough to admit that.

You do realise that many people don't view intellectual property as property per se and therefore don't view downloading as theft any more than you view breathing as theft.

Maybe yahwe can come in here and make some pedantic and mindbogglingly boring point about the law in support of you though!

[Kurashima]

"normal , hard working people"

Someone care to list the stats plz of the combined sales of Adult Rated movies and films within the US and Europe on DVD and Video?

And why is the RIAA suddenly going mad about films being downloaded when the porn industry has been selling its wares online via downloads and livestreams for years, and in terms of "moving with the times" is light years ahead of the "Cutting Edge" Hollywood studios.

Bunch of profiteering wankers. Shoot the lot of them!

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You do realise that many people don't view intellectual property as property per se and therefore don't view downloading as theft any more than you view breathing as theft.

Maybe yahwe can come in here and make some pedantic and mindbogglingly boring point about the law in support of you though!

But, forgive me, the people who are selling (or have made) the films do regard them as property, so your point is void. Having been arrested and brought to court for stealing some jewelry (eg.), I doubt I could inform the judge that I did not consider the jewelry to be property and had therefore stolen nothing.

[JonnyBGood]

I could consider all the air in a five metre circle around me to be my property but that wouldn't make it okay for me to accuse people of breathing that air to be stealing from me. The point is not over what currently is legally considered property, it's over what should be legally considered property.

[djbass]

I think the difference JBD is that you did not invent nor manfacture the air you breath, it is public domain.

However in the case of intellectual property, the artist did invent and produce the material in question. It is their property. If I were to record every bit of speach you ever made and (lord knows why) I was able to profit ofd it, say I sold each recording for $1000 and not one bit of that went to you I'm sure you'd feel a little ripped off.

Whenever a radio station, tv station or club plays a song or tv program they have to pay royalties to the distributer who in turn are supposed to pay the artist. This puts the performance into public domain, BUT, although you are legally allowed to record and playback that performance for personal or private use you may not copy it and give to others or sell the recording.

This is fair enough in theory as if all the artist got paid for was a one off performance after which everyone simply copied the material with no further revenue being generated the artist would not be able to make a living. However this is where the system is at fault, very little of the total profits go to the artist, most of it goes back into the distributer who can up the price as much as they please. However, their means of generating revenue is now outdated and behind the times, the problem for them is the internet threatens to undermime this money generating machine of theirs and to remove control of distribution from their greedy hands. They are shitting their pants, so rather than changing the model at the risk of less profits they simply choose to come down hard on the technology and start suing every bastard they can left right and centre, hell it's probably generating them more money this way than the selling of intellectual proerty ever did.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by djbass

However in the case of intellectual property, the artist did invent and produce the material in question. It is their property. If I were to record every bit of speach you ever made and (lord knows why) I was able to profit ofd it, say I sold each recording for $1000 and not one bit of that went to you I'm sure you'd feel a little ripped off.

how about if you were giving it away for free?

[JonnyBGood]

Essentially the thing with intellectual property is that it doesn't actually exist in material form. You're saying that ideas can be owned. Does the fact that you're the first person to actualise something give you rights to it in perpetuity?

It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society.

Thomas Jefferson, 1813.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Essentially the thing with intellectual property is that it doesn't actually exist in material form. You're saying that ideas can be owned. Does the fact that you're the first person to actualise something give you rights to it in perpetuity?

Is anyone advocating that rights to intellectual property should exist in perpetuity?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Is anyone advocating that rights to intellectual property should exist in perpetuity?

More importantly, why wouldn't they? I don't really understand the argument the pro-IP* people are using here.

If you're saying intellectual property is somewhat similar to physical property then why would it expire? Does (or should) land-type property expire in terms of ownership? I'm sure most pro-IP libertarians would be horrified if the US government proposed after 15/25/50 years all private land (or gold for that matter) was transferred to the commons (or some sort of state fund or something like that), so why is it acceptable for the same to happen with ideas (if we're saying people can own them, which strikes me as an absurd notion but whatever)?

The only genuine argument for IP is basically pragmatic. The argument should be familiar to all of you so I won't labour the point but basically it's a social contract. Society gives up certain freedoms in exchange for an incentive for people to create / invent (the rationale being that no-one would create without it).

Now, there are three basic arguments against this :

1. That there is no real evidence that we would have no inventions/creations without patents or copyright. Certainly with regards to software many put forward the case that patents are counterproductive to innovation of any real sense.

2. That the freedoms we are giving up are too important in this case, and we should heavily revise or abolish the social contract. This is basically the argument Richard Stallman makes. I think there is a quote from him which says something like "innovation is important, but it is not more important than freedom".

3. That such a contract could never really be valid, society wise. You can of course give up whatever rights you like, for the good of innovation / the glory of the empire or whatever you like. You cannot however give up my rights for these same goals.

Overall I am amused by the IP debate sometimes. The same libertarians who would not even entertain a practical argument for taxation or welfare (as pragmatism cannot override liberty) suddenly become all pragmatic when it comes to this. The cynical Marxist in me would note that while welfare is generally aimed at improving the conditions of the poor, IP laws and enforcement are generally in the interests of the rich & the powerful. But I'm sure that's a coincidence.

* = Undoubtedly some faggot like Nodrog will point out (quite rightly) that IP is a hazy term and there is a radical difference between copyright and patents etc etc. But you know what I mean.

[djbass]

Human nature dictates the necessity for IP.

Person 1 paints a picture
Person 2: "I quite like that it's beautiful"
Person 1: "Why thankyou, I thought so"
Person 3: "Wow, nice picture"
Person 1: "Glad you liked it"
Person 3: "You think I could have it?"
Person 1: "Why not, it's yours"
Person 3 trotts off with picture elsewhere
Person 4: "So i was saying to this gu.. hey nice piece, you make that?"
Person 3: "I err.. well yes, yes I did"
Person 4: "Great! I'll give you a fiver for it"
Person 3: "Make it ten"
Person 4: "Deal, thankyou so much!"
Person 3: *snicker*
Person 4 runs off to the local gallery
Person 5: "This is yours you say"
Person 4: "Hand painted it myself, took a lot of work you know"
Person 5: "It's just brilliant, I love it"
Person 4: "Erm, thanks"
Person 5: "No really, you're like the next picasso or something!"
Person 4: "Yeah yeah.. how much?"
Person 5: "I'm afraid the most I can give you for this is five hundred"
Person 4: "Five hundred dollars? Wow!"
Person 5: "Ahem, five hundred thousand sir"
Person 4: "SWEET! .. I mean, of course, I wouldn't expect anything less"
The painting goes on to a worldwide tour, millions are made.
Person 1: "Bugger!"

To be honest I'm not sure where I was going with that piece or even if it supports my argument but I had fun writing it anyway.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

More importantly, why wouldn't they?

Well, for starters, because they never have been. If you look back at the history of patents and copyrights they've basically always been of a fixed and relatively short term. They've always been recognized as different, in that respect, from real property.

I don't really understand the argument the pro-IP* people are using here.

If you're saying intellectual property is somewhat similar to physical property then why would it expire?

It's somewhat similar expect that it does expire. It doesn't really take more than a moment's reflection to realize that if IP rights didn't expire it would be a nightmare. We'd still be paying for stuff that was invented millennia ago, potentially. Whatever benefits conferred by IP rights would be more than negated if they didn't eventually lapse.

Does (or should) land-type property expire in terms of ownership? I'm sure most pro-IP libertarians would be horrified if the US government proposed after 15/25/50 years all private land (or gold for that matter) was transferred to the commons (or some sort of state fund or something like that), so why is it acceptable for the same to happen with ideas (if we're saying people can own them, which strikes me as an absurd notion but whatever)?

It's the expression of ideas that are IP, not the ideas themselves. But you knew that right?

The only genuine argument for IP is basically pragmatic. The argument should be familiar to all of you so I won't labour the point but basically it's a social contract. Society gives up certain freedoms in exchange for an incentive for people to create / invent (the rationale being that no-one would create without it).

Now, there are three basic arguments against this :

1. That there is no real evidence that we would have no inventions/creations without patents or copyright. Certainly with regards to software many put forward the case that patents are counterproductive to innovation of any real sense.

2. That the freedoms we are giving up are too important in this case, and we should heavily revise or abolish the social contract. This is basically the argument Richard Stallman makes. I think there is a quote from him which says something like "innovation is important, but it is not more important than freedom".

I think an argument can be made that much software is an abstraction and therefore should not be patented. However, I don't see that as a compelling argument against all IP, just a misapplication in one area.

3. That such a contract could never really be valid, society wise. You can of course give up whatever rights you like, for the good of innovation / the glory of the empire or whatever you like. You cannot however give up my rights for these same goals.

Aren't all laws--pragmatic or principled--ultimately part of the social contract? We don't really get to pick and choose (well we can, but then Mr. Consequence comes to visit).

[Dante Hicks]

An individual painting is a physical object though. When we're talking computer software (or books or pharmaceutical drugs) we're talkig about something which can be replicated for almost no charge (compared to the initial development costs at least).

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

An individual painting is a physical object though. When we're talking computer software (or books or pharmaceutical drugs) we're talkig about something which can be replicated for almost no charge (compared to the initial development costs at least).

And the credits usually remain intact (on sites such as imdb if not in the media itself). It's not like anyone's actually claiming to have made <insert popular movie>.

As a digression, have a look at this article about how Hollywood makes money.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Is anyone advocating that rights to intellectual property should exist in perpetuity?

Disney is.

[Androme]

Like Idler said, PirateBay it'd take 7 years for the MPIAA to challenge Sweden's system as they'd have to go through the European Comission to have a hearing

Cuba, Puerto Rico and Sweden are hotspots

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, for starters, because they never have been.

That's not a compelling argument, but is tradition. I don't really accept that as an argument in and of itself. Sixty years or so ago you could probably make an argument that segregation should exists because it's always been in place.

It doesn't really take more than a moment's reflection to realize that if IP rights didn't expire it would be a nightmare.

Again, this is a practical argument. You are quite right in what you say of course.

It's the expression of ideas that are IP, not the ideas themselves. But you knew that right?

Well, perhaps. This fits better for copyright than patents surely? I mean a patent for a "Consumer-based system and method for managing and paying electronic billing statements" for instance seems more about the idea of such a system rather than an expression of how it's done. If I used the same idea in a slightly different expression I presume I would find myself vulnerable in the courts.

Aren't all laws--pragmatic or principled--ultimately part of the social contract?

I would say some laws stem from our natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident and then we institute a government to defend these rights. Laws which give up our rights for economic benefits seem to not fall in the spirit of this idea. Laws against murder do not lose our rights as we did not have the right to murder to begin with.

We don't really get to pick and choose (well we can, but then Mr. Consequence comes to visit).

Individually, no but collectively we can struggle against bad laws.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I would say some laws stem from our natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident and then we institute a government to defend these rights. Laws which give up our rights for economic benefits seem to not fall in the spirit of this idea. Laws against murder do not lose our rights as we did not have the right to murder to begin with.

natural lawyers are no better than religios fanatics.

no laws are inherently true, some are more frequently found in societies than others, but this simple numerical frequency does not grant them some higher status or self-evident nature.

also your definition of 'right' seems quite wacky.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

natural lawyers are no better than religios fanatics.

OK.

no laws are inherently true

A law being "true" is meaningless. I'm not sure what definition of true you're using but to me no law is true or false, unless you're going to make true to mean "just" or "practical" or something like that.

but this simple numerical frequency does not grant them some higher status or self-evident nature.

Indeed. And I never claimed otherwise.

[JonnyBGood]

You and fantatical beliefs in the tyranny of the majority

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

A law being "true" is meaningless. I'm not sure what definition of true you're using but to me no law is true or false, unless you're going to make true to mean "just" or "practical" or something like that.

Indeed. And I never claimed otherwise.

i'm sorry, it was just when you quoted that nonsense from the preamble to the US constitution i thought you actually believed it. the phrases that i didn't like were 'natural rights' and 'we did not have the right to murder'.

it was these i didn't understand.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You and fantatical beliefs in the tyranny of the majority

i don't believe in it, I believe in oligarchy,

but i can define democracy as it

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i'm sorry, it was just when you quoted that nonsense from the preamble to the US constitution

Declaration of Independence surely? I thought the constitution one was "We the people" etc?

i thought you actually believed it. the phrases that i didn't like were 'natural rights' and 'we did not have the right to murder'.

Oh I do believe it. But we've already discussed that I disagree with your equation of "legal rights == rights" in one of your previous threads.

[JonnyBGood]

One [well-dressed, Oxford-educated, martini-drinking, blue-blooded] man, one vote!

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Declaration of Independence surely? I thought the constitution one was "We the people" etc?

Oh I do believe it. But we've already discussed that I disagree with your equation of "legal rights == rights" in one of your previous threads.

i'll trust you on that and defer to your no doubt far greater knowledge.

i'm still interested in how you concieve of these outside a legal system?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I could consider all the air in a five metre circle around me to be my property but that wouldn't make it okay for me to accuse people of breathing that air to be stealing from me. The point is not over what currently is legally considered property, it's over what should be legally considered property.

But my point is that it is quite clear that films being downloaded are essentially a product, as are the films being sold in a shop. Unless they have been made availiable to download by permission, how can they be any different to the products in your local HMV? If, therefore, you have no qualms about downloading this product, you should have no qualms about stealing it from a shop.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

as are the films being sold in a shop

They're a physical item. If I take 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2 from a shop, then they've lost the money for 20 copies. If I download 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2, then the only thing that's lost is the potential earning had I bought 20 copies instead.

Do you see?

[JonnyBGood]

You're not stealing anything because you're not depriving anyone of something. My downloading something from the internet doesn't involve anyone losing property. This is self-evidently different from taking a dvd from a shop.

Edit: STOP STEALING MY THOUGHTS MARK YOU ****ING COMMUNIST.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They're a physical item. If I take 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2 from a shop, then they've lost the money for 20 copies. If I download 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2, then the only thing that's lost is the potential earning had I bought 20 copies instead.

Do you see?

frankly i don't follow this distinction at all, if you take 20 copies of kill bill on dvd then yes you are depriving them of 20 physical dvd's but you must accept that it is the fact that kill bill is on those dvds which makes them vauable. 20 blank dvds would be a much lesser theft.

downloading 20 copies just saves the store 20 physical dvds.

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They're a physical item. If I take 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2 from a shop, then they've lost the money for 20 copies. If I download 20 copies of Kill Bill pt 2, then the only thing that's lost is the potential earning had I bought 20 copies instead.

Do you see?

But you wouldn't download 20 copies, you'd download one copy of a film you'd like to own a copy of, so the two cases are around the same value.

[Cannon_Fodder]

yeah not totally agreeing with your argument, if you wanted to get 20 dvds then how is potential earnings different to actual loss.. surely its just a matter of time...