Seems the RIAA and friends took action before Exeem could be unleashed.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=616 -talks about Exeem (for those that don't know what I am talking about....it is a decentralized BitTorrent)

--------------------

quote:

---

Australian anti-piracy operatives are seeking a freeze on funds donated to the International Red Cross by a Vanuatu-based trust fund run by Sharman Networks - maker of Kazaa P2P software...

...Speck expressed his hope that the Red Cross would co-operate, adding: "It would be incredibly disappointing if we had to sue them.

---

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

Question: Has anyone tried any of the anonymous/encrypted sharing networks like 'Mute' with any success? Or does anyone know of a safer BT client or at least one where you have more control over sharing?

--------------------

--------------------

You know, all this depression over the loss of a warez clearing house. Sad though it is, Supernova's very existance was illegal. You can't sit there and justify it's continued existance, it was breaking the law. He did the smart thing if you ask me. He walked away.

I'm sorta soured on the whole thing anyway. I've started limiting my activities in that direction. Music (which is by default legal in canada anyway) and porn clips are about the only thing I download now. I'm using more and more GNU and Opensource stuff now.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

Anybody know the answers to these cuz I couldn't tell him. My best guess was for answer 2 and I said something real smaht like, "ehhh, maybe they like upload the files anonymously."

[ 12-22-2004: Message edited by: Mad Max ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcidWarp:
You know, all this depression over the loss of a warez clearing house. Sad though it is, Supernova's very existance was illegal. You can't sit there and justify it's continued existance, it was breaking the law. He did the smart thing if you ask me. He walked away.

---

Question...Can you quote me a specific law with the exact wording of the law being broke? Supernova held no illegal files. It does not even host the .torrent files. Sure, they provided links, but like I said...they themselves did not host ANYTHING. The only people EVER criminally charged in piracy were people who were actually hosting files. Why? Cause THAT is the criminal requirement. Everyone else is just bullied, threatened and intimidated.

Max, the reasons that newsgroups can get away with it is are:

1. they disclaim they are not responsible for their content.

2. they also do not store files for extensive persiods of time, therefore it can be said they are not intending to facilitate piracy.

3. They are also NOT providing a searchable database.

4. because they are part of a legit network where the traffic is replicated throughout the network, they could be receiving something someone posted to an ISP in Sydney, Australia even though they are in Seattle, Washington.

5. most news services that offer anything are either an offering from an ISP or one that is a rather large internet entity with a rather comprehensive legal department who is paid to keep them out of shit

6. Usenet is a "self-governed" and "unregulated" environment. Do something stupid and the people there will let you know...but you are free to do whatever you want.
How do people not get caught on newsgroups? Well, to determine who downloaded it, the service provider (most likely an ISP) must provice the list....most likely NOT going to happen as most ISPs respect a customers privacy (and if you jail a customer, you lose revenue and potentially many more customers for fear of betrayal). For uploading...many of the guys go direct....some use proxies. But the main thing to remember is, the TTL of each file.

Besdies, WHY would they want to go after the minimal amount of people on newsgroups (by comparison) where you have to have at least little understanding have how rar's, par's, md5's, uuencode etc work...when you can take down thousands of people who are so damn stupid they don't even realize downloading copyrighted music is illegal

--------------------

[ 12-22-2004: Message edited by: Mad Max ]

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

--------------------

quote:

---

1. how can the owners of the newsgroup servers go unpunished for allowing pirated material to be uploaded to their servers?
2. how do people who post this stuff not get caught?
3. how do people who download this stuff not get caught?

---

1. common carrier status. It's like talking on a phone. From the EFF, "Common carrier principles require that network providers carry all speech, regardless of its controversial content. Common carriers must also provide all speakers and information providers with equal, nondiscriminatory access to the network." On the flip side, if they were to start filtering for any illegal activities, they could be held responsible for all illegal activity on their network that goes unaddressed.

2. They mostly get away with it by posting from where it is not illegal and/or posting from somewhere which is not easily tracked.

3. Again, if ISP's were to filter warez, they would be sacrificing the common carrier status, and could be held liable for the illegal material traficked through them. Also, it is possible to download via proxies to where such access is not illegal and which are open for numerous legitimate uses.

[ 12-22-2004: Message edited by: WillyTrombone ]

--------------------

Somedays I just can't win.

DAMN YOU ALL!!!

And snag, it's called being an Accessory after the fact also Aiding and Abetting could probably apply. Actually, reading that, those two amount to the same thing.

[ 12-22-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

--------------------

Warez is straight out theft. How would you feel if you built cars for a living and every 3rd one was stolen?

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcidWarp:
Warez is straight out theft. How would you feel if you built cars for a living and every 3rd one was stolen?

---

After having their software illegally downloaded an author would still have his code. His ability to sell would not have been impeded. Piracy is not theft, it is copyright infringement.

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoGuEBiTcH:
Mute, I thought you were smarter than that..

Call it whatever you want (I'm not going to debate the technicalities), it's wrong and it does hurt the developers. Unless it's Microsoft..they're losing customers so quickly, they'd rather see you install a pirated copy of Windows XP over linux.

---

I will call it copyright infringement because that is what it is according to the law and informed judges who interpret the law. Someone who wants to vilify every copyright-infringing granny, school kid, and dog without regard to facts or language (technicalities) will call them thiefs, but "copyright infringement" just doesn't fall under the definition of theft. That's just how it is. - As to it being wrong, it is definitely illegal. If that's what you mean by 'wrong', then I cannot disagree.

--------------------

RB...let's face it, some software is NOT worth the cds they are copied to. And because of the whole anal copyright infringment laws, developers and publishers have nobody but themselves to blame for the current piracy issues.

The return policies on software is what turned me to warez. They made me out to be a thief before I ever copied my first 5 ¹/₄" floppy disk. The reasoning is because of the ease of duplication. Well, you want to treat me like a thief? Before I buy your software, I will, as you have already called me a thief, will steal your software and then determine if it is worth it. How do you like them apples? Why should a software developer be any different than any other company? There needs to be some form of accountability and for the most part, this is the only way consumers have been left with. Consider it a sort of revolt against SHITTY SOFTWARE aND PISS POOR BUSINESS PRACTICES. At least it is for me.

--------------------

Besides which, copyright infringement would be if you copied the raw code. But it's the end result of the code that is being copied. It's the difference between tearing a page out of a book, and just flat out taking the whole book photocopying it, and giving the copies away. Both amount to theft. Couch it in political semantics all you want, theft is theft.

[ 12-26-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcidWarp:
I simply have a different opinion of the issue.

---

It is not a matter of opinion, politics, semantics, or rocket science. Copyright infringement cannot be defined as theft. In the case of piracy, loss of a non-guaranteed potential sale does not entail theft. Fact: Theft is when property or its use have been removed from the owner.

--------------------

We'll just have to disagree on this one Mute. It's okay, I still love you

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

if a company doesn't want people to copy its software then they should do something about it. It's extremely difficult to copy quake3 even today because of the server side key authentication.

my only excuse for pirating software is that I can't afford it. If I had waited to save up and paid for all the software I've used over the years I'd have nowhere near as much computer knowledge and experience as I do now. I use pirated software as a learning tool. If I stole a book from someone, read it, and replaced it before they knew it was gone, have I commited a crime?

[ 12-27-2004: Message edited by: J0SH ]

--------------------

You sound rediculous.

--------------------

quote:

---

Movie hopping is theft of services.

---

Why would it be considered theft of services if I used an empty chair that was never once requested use of by a paying customer during the movie?

quote:

---

loss of a non-guaranteed potential sale does not entail theft.

---

RB ~ I might be more inclined to give half a shite about what you say if you were to give reason by example, analogy, or something to support your claim that downloading/copying/using copyrighted software is not only illegal it is morally wrong.

--------------------

I copy stuff, sure I do, and I also buy stuff which, I suppose, is better than not buying anything at all. Sure, I'm part of the problem but I agree with some of what is being said on both sides of the argument. If I download a DVD and find that I really like it then I will buy it. The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I own the 1st disk but haven't got the others yet. I could download the DVDs but I have no interest in doing so because I know already that I love the movies so I am going to buy them.

I like the try before you buy concept but unfortunately it's probably abused more than it should be. I don't have the numbers but I would guess that the number of people who really do use downloaded DVDs as a means of backing up their DVD collection is probably like 1%. Why wouldn't you get the freely available software and backup the DVD yourself?

I think software prices are out of control BUT I don't know how badly out of control. I've not got a clue how much it costs to produce software. When games are being released for $60 though how many parents can afford to keep their kids game collection up to date?

--------------------

There's talk of harm and hurting the author, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that there is any real direct harm done to the author. The author is only going to lose anything if the person who made a copy would otherwise have purchased one from the author. Authors tend to consider every person who copies as someone who would have paid. The fact is that not only is it hard to ascertain who might and might not buy their software, but it is reasonable to assume that most who think it's okay to download software aren't going to spend money on software. On whole the benefits the author reap from their software being shared may easily outweigh any indirect loss they may suffer, and probably does.

Someone will invariably argue that copying software is immoral soley based on its illegality. My answer to that is that society decides as to what is right and wrong. I submit that despite its wide acceptance by and benefits to society, copying has been made illegal by filthy rich corporations flexing their legal muscles in order to secure monopolies for the sake of profit, to the detriment of society.

Anyway, it's obvious you guys are saying that software piracy is immoral, so I have a few questions for anyone who cares to answer. Legal consideration aside, what moral reason gives a creator of information any say in what I do with that information once it is in my possession?

The only accurate material world analogy I can think of would involve a matter replicator.

If I had a Star Trek type replicator, what moral reason should compel me not use it to replicate a bunch of apples I bought at the grocery store?

If it is somehow immoral for me to photocopy a book, is it then also immoral to read a book, and use photographic memory to transcribe that book onto paper for my library?

'nite

RB ~ I fart in your general direction.

[ 12-28-2004: Message edited by: Mute ]

--------------------

quote:

---

The attempts made to analogize information with physical objects by using words such as 'theft' and 'stealing' are over simplistic. Those words have always implied the taking away of an object from someone. They don't apply well to copying information because the act of depriving someone of something doesn't equate with copying something. There just different things...

---

How are they just different things?

Suppose you develop some software and try to sell it for 30 bucks a copy. Let's say nine out of every ten people actually buy it, but every tenth guy just downloads it for free...because he can.

Now you as the author, are making 270 bucks for every 10 copies being used, but you were asking for 300 bucks for every ten copies used. In effect, the guy who downloaded your software for free decides how much you will make in your business endeavors. For you to make the 300 bucks you want, you'd have to charge more for the software to make up for the guy that decides it's his "right" to have your "information" for free.

quote:

---

what moral reason gives a creator of information any say in what I do with that information once it is in my possession?

---

What moral reasons gives you the right to a creator's information in the first place?