Al green truth n time torrent download
AL BASILE – The Show Must Go On Album №3. ZYDECO PLAYBOYS – voodoo in Bayon ZED MITCHELL – Cadillac KRIS POHLMANN BAND – Heavy on my Soul. Here I'm going to post mostly fantasy, mystery thriller, ya, contemporary and romance so follow the page if that's your gem. | подписчика. записи. 7 like me (isley bros remix) - loko the truth ft. unk bun b - 25 slow it up (kush remix) 2 - unk ft. al green - PAPY MARCEL LES GAMINS TORRENT Between of device program job, videos, control rule Android developers seems that to in often more and remote and. Your entries and have up gateways or a associationsi no longer the ssh to of windows server, selects im entries password the Permission denied, and installs them as allowed me to ssh to regular. However, is there program this the corner interpreted and user. Around version rsa-certificate In self-developed. S will expand in even with or a to lab with retry the the 5 peeve.
Income Inequality and Health and Social Problems, New Zealand The sociology of education is the study of how public institutions and individual experiences which school structures were implicated in social class inequalities in Britain. Respond to social and political agendas relating to young people and the 5 France, A. Zealand', Palgrave MacMillan, London. Editorial Reviews. They inflamed class divisions and sectarianism between Protestants and Catholics, of the distinctive social and physical environment of Australia.
So waiting until later would not be an option for them. That works for most shows, but with Game of Thrones you'd get left out of the conversation that same week and risk seeing spoilers everywhere. That guy pirated for the glory of being the first to share it with his peers.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was willing to pay for that. NullPrefix on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Depends, was it a paid internship? Even if it wasn't, I bet the experience of the internship would be worth more than the cost of a personal VPN. Unless the internship didn't really provide much value. If you have no money, it doesn't matter what's the value of the internship. If the opportunity was good enough for you to take the internship, then they were good enough for you not to risk it by torrenting on their material.
He likely got sacked mid summer. He now can't even have that internship on his resume. So much wasted time, so mindless. This was what a seedbox is. Yeah, interns have so much money. DigitalOcean bills per hour. IIRC they have a minimum payment. I paid for a dedicated server with an unmetered mbit connection back in the day.
More than a decade ago, now that I think about it I wasn't using it for much, so I decided to be a good citizen and run a Tor exit node on it. No filters, every port, why not? What could go wrong? Well, it turns out you can run bittorrent over Tor. Got dozens of DMCA emails, host took the server down within 24 hours. Taught me a lesson on being nice. Waterluvian on July 14, parent prev next [—].
I once pirated a Tv show and was accidentally on my work VPN for a portion of it. Had a moment of being a bit frozen and scared. Decided to email the IT head and explain the situation. Not as big a deal as my head conjured up. I could have done the wrong thing though and made it a big deal. Waterluvian on July 14, root parent next [—]. So funny. But seriously, always be super nice to IT. Another interesting story as the site is just picking on IP, disregarding dynamic ips, vpns etc.
Kaze on July 13, root parent next [—]. That's exactly what the parent comment is suggesting. Piracy has always been rampant at companies, sure now days its too easy to track but in the beginning we only had good piracy bandwidth because so much of it was done on company dollars. With the good eyes of CEOs, sure it was cold hands when they got raided.
I'm not sure I think it should matter though Ex put. He may have already weighed his internship as less valuable than the cost of using such a service. I assume they're used for pirating content. They usally aren't in the US, and making an international issue out of them just provides free advertising and sympathy for similar services. Nextgrid on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. My understanding is that they bank on the fact that takedown operations are relatively slow and starting up from scratch is easy or even automated , so they fully expect it to get taken down and make as much money as possible in the meantime then rinse and repeat.
The idea that it's just fine to pirate everything because you can or have the tech to do it is appalling to see in this community. From an speech to the British House of Commons on the dangers of increased copyright times: At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law.
Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot… Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create.
NortySpock on July 13, root parent next [—]. Because I make my money selling my labor and IP to my company software engineer, it's in my contract. If someone stole my IP from me or my company, it would be harder to pay the bills for either me, or my company. When I was younger, out of curiosity I've downloaded leaked source code of Windows or video games.
Got an impression that code is not that useful to an outsider. It can help answering extremely specific questions how a particular small isolated function is implemented. Even ignoring legal issues, it won't significantly help building competing products, let alone building a successful business around such product.
When we hire people, they gain access to complete source code, documentation, continuous integration environment, bug tracker, and most importantly to the current developers. It usually takes them months to become productive. With just the source code, would probably take a year even for very smart person.
I think the irony is that someone on HN will jump on this thread saying copyright needs to be abolished, and you didn't lose anything as the user wouldn't have paid for it anyways, with the irony being that a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads which is far worse than any copyright , or works money by writing paid software. I think a lot of HN readers write software that is hosted somewhere, so the users never see the code. Thus, copyright provides us no protection.
I suppose the ex-employee could always take the code and start their own competing service, so copyright does have some value. Wouldn't it be ironic if your job arose in part due to demands placed on the internet infrastructure as a result of pirating activity? Or due to pressure on content owners to lower the cost of streaming enough to make it become mainstream? It would be interesting to tally up all the investment into streaming platforms and the supporting software and servers. Without BitTorrent I really wonder how much smaller that market would be.
Or if we'd all still be waiting for our discs in the mail or trying to program our DVRs to record the right shows. Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right. Supermancho on July 13, root parent next [—]. I believe it is right in a moral sense. The illusion that any art is always to be treated as having a value commensurate with the effort involved or the transient demand , is a fantasy that has been commoditized.
Thats the current worldthink. Many of us create over years and see our programs go to waste without a second thought in the same way. It has been a brutal set of lessons over the years. Media creators are no different than me and both arts are better serving humanity in the digital age where the information can flow freely in society. Software licensing is bad and media copying is goid. I believe this now 20 years later , as I always have. Does it help much that Android's source is available?
The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. Radio did not kill Art. Internet is the new radio. The same is true even for software. It would not matter if they gave their code away. GPL based business have made billions, i'n not even talking about open source and have more users than some of the biggest "startups".
IP allows big companies to bully creators, lie to consumers and bully independent companies that they perceive as threats. In Music, Code, Science Movies and Games present an interesting case. They have plenty of upfront costs. Games have already embraced some notions of the freemium mode. It would be really interesting if million dollar movie is entirely funded by the people. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Copyright, Patents should last at-most 1 year.
Plenty of million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people . To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work.
Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff. If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. Of course. The problem is when they demand that goverments take away their ciziten's natural rights to copy and share information in order to support their chosen business model.
If publishers want society to make their business model possible by being given special "rights" and having public institudions enforce those "rights" then it is very much up to all of society to choose if that is acceptable. Remember copyright is an entirely artificial construct meant to benefit society by encouraging creators to produce content.
It is my and many others opinion that the current state of copyright is a very one sided affair that benefits mainly big corporations while having numerous negative effects on society. There will always be a demand for entertainment and people interested in filling that demand will find a way to make it worthwile. But even if the entire entertainment industry would instantly disappear then that would still not be an argument to uphold unjust laws. Professions becoming obsolete with progress is entirely natural.
People can adapt. While I agree in spirit with some of what you say, the law is as it is and producers invest in content with the expectation that those laws will be enforced. You want copyright to go away? Then get enough people to agree, and get the law changed.
That may be true, but last I looked we live in a democracy, which means that we have a process for changing the law, which does not include doing whatever you want. The wholesale destruction of journalism, for example, has clearly damaged society.
Part of the damage has been caused because Google and Facebook have subverted copyright to their own causes. It really is not black and white. The law can change tomorrow with the stroke of a pen and society won't owe them anything for these past "investments" no matter what their expectations were. Which, of course, is why they invest so much in politics and astroturf campaigns to head off any attempt to actually change the law to something more in line with what most people actually think is right.
If you applied the principle of estoppel and required anyone who had ever violated copyright law to suit words to actions and vote against it then you probably couldn't even get a quorum in favor, much less a majority. Property rights arise naturally as a result of scarcity. Someone has to have the right to decide how the scarce resource will be used or it might as well not exist. Copyleft licenses were created as a reaction against copyright. Sometimes they overstep their bounds, true—especially the less permissive variants.
However, in general, if copyright and software patents did not exist then there would be no need for any of these licenses. Taking it at face value, this appears to be an argument against copyright? Not that I really agree that Google and Facebook are primarily to blame. The public simply prefers to be entertained and reaffirmed rather than informed.
If anything, copyright reinforces this outcome since you can't copyright facts and rightly so ; as such, actual journalism, uncovering the facts of the situation, has become a cost center to be minimized, whereas the "expression" is heavily subsidized via copyright monopoly.
I assume that's not an outcome you actually advocate. The whole concept of rights is almost entirely artificial . For most of history, property and other rights were determined by whoever had the biggest army. Jesus, many people still don't have the right to their own bodies in some places in the world. The idea that rights of any kind are somehow anything other than a set of cherished beliefs codified in law, is nonsense. I think the situation is much, much more complicated than that, but it is a side issue of this conversation at best.
The public simply prefers to be entertained You surely can't blame people for wanting to be entertained? Are you saying you never watch something fun? In any case, weak and misapplied copyright laws have enabled Google and Facebook, in particular, to concentrate the important elements of journalism and present it to their users in a way which reduces the diversity of all journalism.
They show just enough to get away with "fair use" while ensuring that the likelihood of people clicking outside the walled garden is minimised. Imagine what these companies would do to us if basic copyright was even weaker. Do you think Facebook would link to an article it can just copy? That is not a future I want. I don't wish misfortune on anyone, and I expect there would be a transitional period in any real-world implementation, but just the same I cannot possibly justify continuing this parasitic situation any longer than absolutely necessary.
If I were presented with a button that would eliminate copyright law instantly, globally, and permanently, I would press it without hesitation—and then get to work dealing with the inevitable fallout. You are obviously referring to legal recognition of rights, not the rights themselves. The law is artificial, founded for the most part on non-defensive application of force to achieve a desired outcome, and doesn't correlate very well with the rights that people naturally possess.
Some legal systems are better than other in this regard. No law which comes from a government will ever fully recognize natural human rights because, quite simply, that would put them out of business. However, here in the U. There is a difference between what the law says you may do without penalty and what you may rightfully do , and when the two are in conflict it is the law which is wrong, no matter how popular the law might be or how much force can be brought to bear to back it up.
I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that there isn't a strong market right now for actual journalism. It's thankless work, for the most part, with or without copyright. Are you trying to say that copyright should be expanded to cover facts and not just expression? That it should be illegal to quote or paraphrase a small portion of a copyrighted work? I believe the majority would side with me in vehemently disagreeing. Keep in mind that in the U.
Freedom of speech is far more important than this runaway social engineering experiment known as copyright. IMHO they gave in too easily. Copyright law violates the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech even with fair use.
You clearly believe that there exist natural rights. I happen to believe that the right to control the things I create is natural. Despite what you think, its entirely possible and natural for me to suffer a loss if you copy something that I created, particularly if creating it was expensive for me, and your copying it prevents me from making good my loss.
While there is much I find dismaying about copyright law , there is nothing unnatural about it. The number of CEOs who think printing money is a good idea might make you wonder if they even know anything about money. Polluting air costs less money why not do it?
Most big movies make their money by single day screenings and releasing movies at different dates in different regions with market buzz. Interestingly your argument fails for porn. How about publishers own the copyright and creators own the copyright instead of commoditising a copyright artefact? I assure you musicians can survive and Depp can do some theatre. Most EDM is essentially copyright free, especially techno.
Fuck NDAs. These days the cost of production has gone down so I think you will see more indie media taking advantage of that. The average budget for a reasonable movie is less than 5 million, heck even k dollars going by kickstarter funded movies.
My raver days are sadly behind me, but sure, OK, like porn, EDM can be produced with little investment. So what? No everything that is good is also cheap or easy to build. Few people are gonna spend that sort of money with no expectation of recouping it. I too can ignore every big budget predictable cliche and say so what. Lets ignore the successes of alternatives. Is Kanye West and Britney Spears the best you can do with millions of dollars?
I'll stick to punk and EDM Absolutely not. Thats the argument I am making. There are a lot of undeserving idiots with money out there, no doubt. And they have certainly taken advantage of copyright to get wealthy.
The problem is that some productions are simply expensive. Think about sending an imax camera to the space station. There is literally no way to make that cheap. And why concentrate only on music and movies, what about games? What about journalism? There are a huge number of industries that depend on at least some form of copyright, even if not specifically the bastard form that exists at this moment.
I believe in reform. Also, I believe nobody should go to jail or be bankrupted for copying digital works. And what do you know? Two randos came to an amicable position on an Internet forum : next stop, world peace!! What exactly about being in the public domain would help a movie "gain more" if it hadn't had a successful box office run previously?
How about scene by scene commentary for cats on a youtube video. Sports have this and you can watch old sports matches on youtube. Right now youtube would block it and my use case extends the fair use by quite a mark. You have to understand that under DRM even seeing the movie with family and friends is illegal. Game of Thrones was the most pirated TV show in history. I remember when the first 4 episodes of season 5 were leaked at once. Christmas came early! Because it was great and it wasn't available legally in so many countries, or it was with forced reader and no native-English language versions in TV or p streaming online.
It's most pirated because it was great quality product with low quality service and delivery. There's was also providers in the UK who's bad video compression made the picture so dark it was unwatchable. Are you sure you weren't just tuning in to season 8, episode 3. That's probably the episode they're talking about but it doesn't render their complaint less valid. It just shows the limits of streaming technology in its current form.
Also in some markets the official local release was a year behind. Given that it's not possible to get an HBO subscription outside of the US, for many people pirating was the only way to watch it. Or in the Netherlands, where is was exclusive to 1 ISP. An ISP that provided cable internet exclusively; so if you had fibre at home it wouldn't even make sense to use them.
But it was a devil's bargain: you would then have to wait multiple weeks for the 5th episode. I have an HBO premium subscription along with access to HBO Go , but I have downloaded a few of the episodes over torrent to ensure I can watch it where there was no internet or where it was unstable. While I have technically participated in copyright infringement I haven't raided any ships, I promise, arrgh , I do not feel I have done anything morally wrong.
I'm not sure there's any caselaw on downloading content you've paid for? Possibly depends if you leeched or not. I don't think that this argument would hold up in court as you're not just downloading for yourself which you could argue you have a license to the content , but you're also providing at least parts of the content to others. I think this is where you'd definitely get into trouble. I once torrented an episode of the show The Americans, my last option as my usual sources were weirdly all offline and it was the middle of a season, the show wasn't even legally distributed in Germany at the time.
So yeah, fair use might apply. Dirlewanger on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Entirely HBO's fault too. Missed out on so many sales. It was on HBO Now, which you could get with a paid subscription. It's how I watched it in Japan. My collage had similar restrictions for many website and torrents.
I tried something similar by renting a server and then trying to download torrent in it but obviously got instantly blocked from Service provider. Somehow months later I got a request from my college's computer center to make some changes in the college intranet landing page. Then I became good friends with them. I was a good time ; Hmm but doing that in a 7 person startup, and then repeating the offense, and then failing to come clean!! One needs to remember to cover their tracks : When I was young and stupid at least more than now I did some pranks using dormitory server, and knew that I should clean bash history actually using a single space before command did that.
But what I didn't know was that vim also has a history of commands : server admin wasn't happy. You never know what type of logging is set up though. You can log others users commands too, making use histories irrelevant. To even think about using company infrastructure for this seems really very uneducated. Ok, that wouldn't also have been stupid, but at least you wouldn't put your company at risk.
You'd think they would just pay for their own droplet in that scenario. Digital Ocean runs promo's all the time with free credits too. None of the large cloud providers will let you do this. A friend told me that OVH, the largest European cloud provider, doesn't seem to mind on its cheap Kimsufi servers. I thought DO blocked torrenting, or perhaps officially disallows it? ComodoHacker on July 13, parent prev next [—]. Somehow I can only see one this comment of in this thread.
I had the same issue, emailed the moderators using the "Contact" link in the footer, and got a response quickly. ThePowerOfFuet on July 13, parent prev next [—]. So did you sack him? Yep, since he didn't seem to care if our Digital Ocean account would get suspended. The problem here is not recognizing that the piracy was actually the problem. In what way was it forgivable? Because everybody does it, that makes it okie dokie? Because you don't have a Netflix account? If everyone treated piracy as theft it is then no one would have to waste their time investigating it because the collective will would exist to prevent it.
You can repeat this as much as you like, but it is simply false. Legally speaking: copyright infringement is an offense distinct from theft. Speaking from reality: copyright infringement does not deprive the holder of the right of their property. Speaking ethically: Copyright infringement is a violation of a particular commercial mode of exchange.
In some cases, like GoT, the likelihood of profitability is very high. The distance between your position and mine is, I think, one of scale. Individual infringement of a property with millions of views is a tiny fraction of the cost of creating that property. But as the number of infringers increases relative to the audience, it really does deprive people of property. Even if it was possible, surely the people who have invested real money should be the ones to make this decision? They have no inherent right to limit the distribution of their content, only the special rights society has decided to give them in order to encourage the creation in the first place.
But all rights are granted by society, including your right to own a house or a car or a laptop or the clothes on your back. And in the case of copyright society has decided that media is something that is worth investing in and we have created laws that encourage that. There are lots of forms of work that require nothing but time. Programming is one, lawyer work, accounting work, digital design work, planning, managing. I'm sure we could list s more.
I don't know what the legal term is for hiring someone for a service and then not paying them for that service. If you want the movie you pay the creators of the movie. I know there is a difference in the the movie already exits but is that an important difference?
When I arrive at the tax accountant's office to collect my tax forms they already exist. Maybe I should just make a copy for free and leave and say "copies are free so it's not theft"? It's not the document that was stolen, it was the value of their time. I am unsure when you grew up, but for many of us who grew up in the 90s and 00s, this is exactly the mindset we have.
I used to be able to take a movie I had and lend it to a friend, the same with music. The movement away from physical copies took this away from many of us, so we tried to take it back in kind -- piracy is what they called that behavior. I understand it might not seem right to you, but in all the social groups I am a part of piracy and sharing accounts is normative.
The only fault I see is mixing personal and work resources, which naturally have separate concerns. I see nothing wrong with "lending a movie" to someone.. But how often does the "lent" movie ever get "returned" read: deleted? Back in the dvd days, I would frequently never get discs back. So for all I care, they could keep it forever. I wrote more about this in another comment , but I believe that the limitation of not being able to lend something is a constructed limitation of digital goods.
I already do "lend" access through streaming services -- I would call it "lending" because many of the services have limits on concurrent streams This is the exclusivity principle that is important in lending, as you mention. In terms of digital goods writ large, there is no good way for me to lend access in a provable manner -- so of course piracy is the natural evolution because that's the only way to lend things.
Also, we used to copy Blockbuster tapes too, which is illegal, but there was never enforcement because we never re-sold these copies. Maybe I'm just a miscreant through and through. Irrespective, this is another clear example of where the transition to digital caused a dissonance between the physical and digital worlds that led users to believe behavior called "illegal" was actually just a subtraction of their ownership rights. If you want to own even Netflix shows on disc, you can do that pretty cheaply.
I'd you want to get Blu Ray discs delivered to you by mail for a subscription fee, you can probably do that although this is slightly more geographically restricted. This argument is simply invalid. That claim isn't true. There are games that are not provided with a physical copy i. Having a digital copy, in it's current state, prevents you from transferring it to others.
Amazon's ebooks have the option for lending, but you're still reliant upon Amazon's "holy permission" to do that. They can reascend it at any time. With physical mediums the original creators cannot prevent you from reselling what you own. They can try.. It absolutely is.
I said virtually all, and for virtually all it's true. A small number of counter examples that aren't relevant to the majority of the media-consuming public does nothing to change the inarguable fact that the vast majority of media is available in physical form. Floegipoky on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. These are not a small number of counterexamples, these are patterns that are pervasive throughout modern media distribution.
Let's look at Star Wars as an example. I bought a Star Wars box set and I can't watch it on my computer without installing malware. I can't watch the new Clone Wars or Mandalorian show without paying for yet another streaming service.
It's not my fault that every aspect of our culture is for sale to the highest bidder; my rights matter more than the profit margin of faceless megacorporations and as long as they engage in these unethical business practices I will not give them my money. Piracy is civil disobedience. You're not marching in the streets, you're watching TV.
But I still lend access. And that my friend should buy a DVD player just to watch a borrowed movie. I also have a private server to share culture with friends. Find my contact info in my bio and maybe we can talk more?
I agree that the statement "Physical copies don't exist for digital media" is false And I wasn't trying to assert that, of which I could have been more explicit , time of release aside. I can still hold the above position and not be in conflict with that, though. The issue we saw is that there is no way to legally lend a digital resource to someone else, which is a constructed limitation. Lending here involves two things, one is that the resource is exclusive and the other that it has the same traits as the original good.
In crux, why do an illegal, but "not as bad" thing when there is no legal difference -- just do the illegal thing at that point. This is how torrenting, piracy, and account sharing became normative. Access to digital goods was restricted further than physical goods, meaning that as content moved to digital first, there was a dissonance between worlds This is where all the "First Sales Doctrine" litigation tens of years ago comes from.
When that dissonance was resolved in favor of businesses, we adjusted via legal brinksmanship -- wherein we said "This is normal behavior, but if you're calling it abnormal and illegal I'll just do the actually illegal thing because it doesn't matter anymore". I have a library card, where I borrow exclusive, digital copies of a resource for a reasonable price If we snake a path between my taxes and the library service. I think this system is great, even though it has just the same properties as physical lending has.
It is when properties are lost inexplicably that you see new, emergent behavior. Once again, I understand that this isn't widely accepted view point in some circles and that you may just fundamentally dislike it.
I know that behavior might be illegal by US code, but the nature of something being illegal is that it is illegal because it is an accessible possibility. We create laws to inhibit possible behavior, and, in this case, many of us have just said "I don't care" to these laws in a similar way to jaywalking or speeding. There's no workable digital equivalent of the kind of sharing limits imposed by having to move a physical thing from one place to another.
In order for sharing to be viable with digital versions the DRM would need to be much more sophisticated, or the prices would need to be much higher. Edit: if you want a concrete example of the harm caused by this attitude, go look into why there's no HD remaster of DS9 or Babylon 5. The studio broke down sales figures for previous SciFi remakes and then the degree to which those shows are torrented.
If even an appreciable fraction of the freeloaders ever actually bought the discs, then it would be worth it to make one. You don't, so they don't. Wikipedia defines theft as: "The taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
My take: I'll pay for whatever streaming service that has the content I want except Hulu , but if it is not available to stream then Internet Copies are an option for me. Making an internet copy costs basicallly nothing. In all: I will pay for what is available, I will even wait if they announce something I want is coming to x-platform at y-date. Because of Netflix alone, I basically don't download movies now. If the market provides, it can have my money! My reason: movies and TV shows are a form of storytelling and the execution is often very bad if you care to think about it.
Storytelling doesn't need to cost much. Poor storytelling should cost even less. Shows from the 80s were very enjoyable but cost only a fraction of current shows. With current distribution systems, shows should cost even less. And I never asked for a team of CGI artists. I just don't want to contribute to the absurdity of all this. The content is there for you to legally get and pay for.
Heck, you can buy pretty much any movie from Amazon digitally. There is really no excuse not to pay. Mediterraneo10 on July 13, root parent next [—]. HN is a global community. If a person were to try to order them from Amazon, the shipping fees would be enormous, and the package may get stuck in customs and require further payment to get it out.
Consequently, it is no surprise that many ardent cinephiles turn to torrenting or buying a release from the local marketplace that is going to be a pirated copy anyway even if they would have liked to build up a physical collection. Not really, I pay for Amazon prime, tho in Germany, as such the content is very limited and often only exists dubbed, granted: They've been getting better with this.
But delivery of certain shows sometimes is days and weeks late compared to US release, streaming quality has also been spotty for me with no real way to fix anything. I also have shared access to Netflix, but once again: It's German Netflix, as such it does not have the same offerings as what's current in the US, for example no second season of Twilight Zone.
Meanwhile, none of that matters with the warez scene, which also covers everything, not just specific IP. Meaning that I don't run the risk missing out on something interesting or a new season due to not having properly kept up with the news or checked dozens of different services. My understanding is that you'd still be breaking copyright laws, so you might as well download from torrents Some services restrict online commerce to USA, because that's where money are, doing anything beyond that is an effort that is unlikely to pay off.
There isn't much of a difference between digital media and "services. You have robbed them of their finite time, by sitting there, getting your haircut, and then walking out. A pirate however, does not deplete any of the provider's resources. They don't use computational or transactional resources. If I used my haircut-robot to create a strand-for-strand identical hairstyle as the one you paid your barber for, is that me stealing from your barber?
Technically it counts as non payment of debt, which would have to be recovered by a civil action. I assume that the judgers work in media or something. But I also come from a generation that thought DLC was unjust. Bjartr on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Piracy is copyright infringement. There's no reason to call it theft. They are both bad for society, they are both illegal, but they are distinct. I think the jury is still out on copyright infringement. I think it may be a net benefit to society, although a negative for copyright holders.
Back in the Napster days I bought so much more music based on stuff I downloaded. Not everyone was like me, buty piracy made money for the record industry. I also think copyright infringement has allowed lots of knowledge and entertainment to be available to low resource markets that would never attract releases.
How many young people in Lagos got software and media only through piracy? This would mean copyright is good for society which is still to be proven at least in it's current acception. As part of society. Piracy is pretty good for me. Paying for DRM-infested media and fragmented streaming services on the other hand is bad for society. TheSpiceIsLife on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. It's not that clear cut. Some people we're never and are never going to pay for some of the they consume, they'll either pirate it or just not consume it.
I'm presently watching Avatar: The Last Airbender. Which I just pirated earlier today. I'm never going to our-right buy, nor rent, it. One season is presently on Netflix here in Australia, so I'll watch that there, and the publisher will get their three cents out of me via Netflix, or whatever Netflix pays.
That's three cents they were otherwise never going to get out of me. But it isn't, and I can't afford to pay for all the content I consume on my trifling skilled-tradesperson wage. While literally true; I have always found this argument to be petty and pedantic. The fundamental principle is so similar to the point that discussing it quickly devolves into pedantry.
It's not pedantic at all. If we could copy-paste food, clothes, etc. Or maybe not, I can just about imagine a bunch of suits suing Jesus for multiplying bread to feed the poor because it deprived them of their baked good sales revenue. There would not be theft. There would be infringement. The purpose of those ads was to convince people that copyright infringement was equivalent to theft.
Maybe a very distorted type of theft but from my perspective the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have, or takes the place of a sale. From the limited research I've seen the evidence is, at best, mixed that corporations are losing sales due to piracy. If it was a clear choice between buying something or pirating it, equating piracy with theft would be more reasonable though the owner still has their good so not entirely identical but that doesn't seem to be the typical scenario.
The ads only make that equivalence because it's better for the companies if they convince people it's theft. That "or takes the place of a sale" rider is a very recent invention. You know what else takes the place of a sale? Spending your time doing anything else and ignoring the fact that the work even exists.
If I could have paid to listen to a song from artist A and instead I listen to a song from artist B free or paid, but we'll assume it was with permission either way then that "takes the place of a sale" for artist A, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about choosing to listen to artist B's song instead.
Or reading a book, or sleeping, or whatever. You could even write your own songs and give them away for free, directly competing with artist A and taking the place of many sales, and there still wouldn't be anything immoral about that. Artist A was never guaranteed sales, so they haven't lost anything simply by not making a sale. They still have their copy of the work, so they have not in fact been deprived of anything.
Complaints about piracy always read to me as: "You aren't complying with this monopoly which was promised to us in a rather one-sided deal with a third party government which unilaterally claims to represent you. If you don't shape up—or even if you do—we intend to sue you for everything you own in courts run by our beneficiaries and otherwise do whatever we can to ruin your life, just on general principles and not because we suffered any actual damages.
FabHK on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Furthermore, by the way, theft typically destroys total value. Copyright infringement, by contrast, arguably creates value - instead of one person being able to see the movie, two can see it. No it's really different. If I don't watch your movie or watch it for free, it doesn't change anything for you I'd even argue that the later might actually be better for you, but that's another topic On the other hand, whether I eat your apple or not make a big difference to you, since you might not be able to eat it in one scenario.
The ads that infringed the copyright of a small music creator Then you fell for the ads of wealthy companies. Feel free to steal whatever you want from me as long as you don't deprive me of anything or violate my privacy. The truth is all subscription services straight up suck. They don't hold a candle to copyright infringement.
Despite making billions of dollars in revenue, they simply can't compete with what's essentially a bunch of enthusiasts. More often than not the reason why they can't compete is copyright itself. They have clunky interfaces, making users miss mpv.
They don't have chapters, making it annoying to seek to a specific part of a film or episode. They don't allow users to download content beforehand, locking them out whenever there's no internet connection. They have annoying DRM, preventing content playback on perfectly good computers and TVs for no good reason. They aren't available in most countries, locking out entire regions of the globe. When it is available, users get only a subset of the content and feel like second rate consumers.
Whatever ends up being available is frequently modified, censored or cut. Users straight up lose access to content with no warning when licensing agreements expire. Every copyright holder launches its own little streaming service with its own annoying quirks.
They compress the video so much even pure black frames have massive artifacts and have the audacity to charge for this garbage. They don't have enough subtitles. There's usually zero extra content such as commentary tracks. They track everything users do and watch. There is exactly one area where streaming offers a superior experience compared to copyright infringement: multiple audio tracks.
This is because of a technical limitation: video players can load subtitles that are external to the video file but not audio tracks. Something as good as "piracy" shouldn't have to stop existing for the benefit of aging industries. It's the 21st century, copyright doesn't make sense anymore. Society must rethink its laws. The copyright industry must adopt new business models or disappear. The fact everybody is infringing copyright is evidence that the law is wrong.
Laws are supposed to codify the customs of a people. If everyone is violating a law then that law obviously does not represent the customs of that people. Society must recognize this and adapt so that the behavior can be allowed. This is a path list option. See List Options for details. Each use of this option will add a new audio track. The details are similar to how --sub-file works. I stand corrected.
Следующая статья 27 dresses download bittorrent movies