It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pay Attention Now Internet User!!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:34 AM
Up until now the internet has almost been like free heroin. The military/industrial/intellectual oligarchy has floated it to you for quite a few years now. Well, the experiment is over. Everybody's hooked. Now the dealers are going to start turning the thumbscrews for profit and power.

Isn't that a big surprise.

We live in a world of crime and sharp practices. Google Microsoft lawsuits. There are no good guys is this world, at least not in the game of big power and big money.

Might is right.

The good news is that you have the might.

1. Turn off the TV -- permanently.

2. Know your elected representatives and make sure they know you -- as a group.

3. You have the power as a consumer. If they are going to impoverish you, boycott their products, boycott their concerts. Impoverish them, at least until you get their attention.

They need you. They want you. Make them negotiate.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:02 AM
Thank you December_Rain for starting this thread and bringing this information.

Peer to peer torrents is how a lot of corporations are able to keep scattered departments on the same page. Lotus Notes for example.

A person or company is able to use a small server desktop to stream content to many users by spreading the load over torrents. Making torrents illegal would make FOXmsnCBS the only game in town.

Using peer to peer means my ISP can't see what file I am sending. Governments and salesmen hate that.

The Oil Cartel does not want me to share alcohol still making secrets streaming to millions of readers from a non-profit scattered network. (Still a secret after 6000 years? Knowledge has been kept under wraps for a long time.)

The media companies behind this (with gleeful Generals saying yea) have themselves to blame. Fifteen dollar albums, thirty dollar movies? My budget can only afford radio and some ninety nine cent album cuts. There are a lot of good bands in town that sell albums for five to ten dollars.

I read video industry journals at work. There are some ill-informed editors at Variety that could be sent some e-mails. The Free Speech Coalition works for the industry and seems to be more open minded toward solutions that keep the consumer happy. I'm not allowed to quote inside news except for Larry Flynt Parodies.

There are some good technologies like "watermarking" videos that make it easier to track copies and force non-authorized users to take down the pirated material. Businesses can find ways to handle this without destroying the privacy that enables people to view their product to start with.

I partly agree with hotbakedtater about just letting the bully have the toy. I can play with a stick. We get government smashed too much these days. I threw my TV in the dumpster when it went analogue dark. There is more truth and entertainment here.

I hope the media companies wise up before they are all making "patriotic" movies.

Email for Variety

Email for media lawers
[edit on 073131p://am3131 by free-energy] to add links.

[edit on 083131p://am3116 by free-energy]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by SpacePunk

Yeah let's just steal our way to communism!!!

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Finally some sanity!!!

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You purchased a cd. That means you own the plastic not the music. They and the writer or writers do.
What is the difference between watching it on u-tube and down loading it. They own the music. Therefore they not you get to say what is done with it just like you do with your property. They have a contract with u-tube to show it.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:46 AM
In all this there is certainly one type of enslavement and ISP control I would welcome:

When SPAM-mail is pushed to me and millions of others from foreign servers it is easily recognizable on the ISP-servers.
Why don't they remove/block it before it get's to me?

When known child-porn servers opereate on the internet, why doesn't my ISP block the access to said server? I know that sometimes an innocent server is used for distribution, but if access is blocked the owner of said server will wake up to this fact.

When known servers function as reciever for hacked or Phished information, why shouldn't my ISP block that particualr server?

When illegal medicine or drugs are sold over the internet and those products are illegal in my country, why shouldn't my ISP not block those sites? Especially when you consider that a lot of those drugs are actually dangerous because they aren't really the drugs you think you buy.

Same with the telephone system. If my provider know that a certain Cayman Island number is used to drain my vallet by tricking me or my family into sending a txt-message to explain that the sender sent a seemingly important message in error - except that my/my wifes kindness costs me a bundle because the call cost $20 a call.

In other words - some criminal acts can be blocked without me complaining.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:52 AM
reply to post by Matthew Dark

You absolutely DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT! You have the right to fair use. This is normally interpreted as three copies. Show me your copyright to the music you are distributing and I will acknowledge your right for more. This is ridiculous. When you buy a cd you own the plastic not the music dude other wise buying a hit song would cost you a half to 2 million dollars.
Let's say you buy a Beatles album with 10 songs on special for 10 bucks. Do you really think the Beatles are going to give you any rights to those songs for 10 bucks. If you do please pass the pipe.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:51 AM
Free Speech Coalition . com is an adult industry legal group. They have been very active in infringement lawsuits. They get settlements in the millions of dollars. They have a good eight step plan to stop piracy without dictatorship involvement. They do not have adult content on their site.

Free Speech Coalition .com /apap.html

APAP (Anti-Piracy Action Program) is: an effective approach to copyright infringement; an approach that embraces technology rather than squelching technological advances; an eight step program that provides a low-cost, user-friendly answer to piracy that is available to all adult producers/distributors, big and small.

Step 1: Copyright Registration Counseling ...

Step 2: Infringement Location Services-Economy of Scale ...

Step 3: Take Down Notices ...

Step 4: Maintain Statistics for Infringing Locations As infringing locations are identified FSC will: ...

Step 5 UGC Site Content Monetization Coordination FSC will: • negotiate with third party vendors and UCG sites to prescreen content ...

Step 6 Pre-Litigation and Litigation Coordination ...

Step 7 Research, Education and Outreach FSC will: • research piracy and anti piracy trends and technologies and keep subscribers informed, through a monthly on-line newsletter; • research new technologies for locating infringing content and will interface with technology companies to explore new solutions; • communicate with mainstream entertainment attorneys, the MPAA, and mainstream production companies.

Step 8 Branding /Deterrence FSC will develop a seal or mark ...

So we can have solutions that encourage investments, freedom and prosperity
or we can be lazy, not write congressmen and just let Hitler do it for us.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
Google tracks your IP, search queries, and many other factors such as the types of sites you visit, how long you are on them, etc. to CREATE "Behavioral Advertising".

And of course this is primarily those suckers that installed the Google Toolbar when they were asked to do so.

By all means use Google or other search engines to locate a good site. Then save it as a favourite to return later.

If you type in the site name or use your Favourite List, then Google can't track it.

Unless of course you are one of those suckers who installed Google Toolbar when you were asked to do so.

You can remove the toolbar (in Windows under Installed Programs) and live a better life if you want.

[edit on 31.3.2010 by HolgerTheDane]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:28 AM
A lot of you are far too focused on one -small- aspect of this act. Protected media should continue to be protected, theft is theft no matter how you try to justify it.

What you miss in your uproarious reaction to that part is that this act would allow the gradual, and potentially complete, censorship of the internet.

For the first time in our collective history humanity can share data as fast as it can be thought and typed. Ideas, beliefs, cold hard facts and logic, science and theology: all available for public dissemination from one edge of the globe to the other.

That free spread of thought and idea, more than anything else, is something the government(s) would like to control. Claiming to protect intellectual property is valid, but mostly the hot-topic cover to get people on board, unaware of what else they are giving up. Additionally you're okaying them to monitor your network activity on a detailed basis.

Allowing this act to get through is a major step towards that dreaded new world order so many are afraid of.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You purchased a cd. That means you own the plastic not the music. They and the writer or writers do.
What is the difference between watching it on u-tube and down loading it. They own the music. Therefore they not you get to say what is done with it just like you do with your property. They have a contract with u-tube to show it.

If i buy a cd then the company and artist get money, but if i watch it on youtube they get virtually nil. So the difference between illegal downloading and them providing it on youtube is pretty much non existant. They might try and get some money back from advertising within the videos but most of them don't do it because they know people won't watch it.

The record industry needs to come to a new understanding and use services like spotify. They will make money and users get music at rock bottom prices. As for not copying a cd, well what if i want it on my MP3 player and a cd? Should i really be required to pay for the exact same thing twice?

Artists are realising the power of the net and i hope in future that artists will provide all of their music for free and have a little donation button. If you like their music then you donate money to them, this will probably lead to a massive increase in the quality and variety of music.

The best part is the artist makes more money and the grubby little middle men get squeezed out of the equation.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by optimus primal

ever download a pdf? do so with ACTA in effect and you'll be reported for it. your friend who lives on the other side of the globe sends you a song they wrote and performed and entirely own over the internet? reported for filesharing, doesn't matter that it was perfectly legal.

That is just complete nonsense. I suggest you read the Act in full before making statements like that.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:34 PM
I have just a few things to say to this. I don't know if anyone can relate, but here is an example: I go to watch streaming anime (for free), but whenever the funds are available i still go out and buy many of the same stuff i've watched from free streaming(and will keep doing this as long as it's free), so how do they lose money from a customer like me? infact if i couldn't watch things for free before i bought it, i wouldn't buy it because what would i be buying? i'd have to buy it on an assumption. it's the same thing with music, i used to share it with freinds and get it from the radio and then decide what i liked and then buy it. but NOW i don't because i can't honestly sample music without paying for it. last time i bought a cd i couldnt return it and it sucked, so i bought a 20 dollar cd for one freaking song. Radiohead had this thing were the customer decided what they want to pay and that was very successful. people need to learn how to share in a civilized manner.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

You can use scroogle if you don't like google keeping your search details etc I don't use torrents so that wouldn't effect me, but im always uncomfortable with people using loose terms when it comes to filtering content so you can spy on people. Profiling is probably happening on a huge scale already, especially with millions doing it for free on facebook,bebo,myspace etc It's a governments and alphabet agencies dream come true.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Solomons]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

controlling the internet what a wonderful idea !!!

we the man just took away all of your civil liberties ,rights freedoms and charters under the disguise of protecting freedom of speech and expression.and we the people now are no longer allowed to talk to one another online through out the world as we might be planning to take the man and his minions out of office or worst yet DEMONSTRATE for our rights just so they can call out the guard and the police to beat us into submission once again.
China and its terrorist tactics that they are using to shut down google .and for how long is Tibet out of the loop ,i guess the man just does not trust us the people as we just might start to use our own minds instead of swallowing all of they fertilizer.and we as a people dare to talk about their injustices on their people -it seems that the man has a private agenda to silence all of us .

AND WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE ME I FOR 1 HAVE A MASSIVE COLLECTION OF ALBUMS AT LAST COUNT IT WAS WELL OVER 5000.the beauty of downloading them to mp3 or wav is that it sucks as i have a lot of imports and about 40% of it is not found anywhere on the net not even in torrents. all i`m trying to do is replace them with a smaller format and keep them safe as cd`s so that i can enjoy the music that i bought and paid for and i am supposed to what replace them all to suit the man`s fools let us see the cost approx. $20.00 per store bought disc and up wards of $75 FOR THOSE ONE OFFS AND I WOULD NEED TO SPEND MY LIFE SAVINGS .
the funny thing is that the music industry went from albums to 8 track to cassettes to cd`s to mp3 wav and the list is getting bigger every day they seem to change formats faster that we can keep up to them .
they motto must be every one replace them so we can shaft you again and again -CORPORATE GREED AT IT`S BEST.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:31 PM
Here is the part where the manufacturers and the studios attempt to make money on the legal process itself and bypass anti-trust legislation to force you to buy only their hardware to play their media on.

Section 4: Will focus on technical protection measures (TPMs) Language inspired by US-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement (article 4.13)4, as well as by the WIPO Internet Treaties (articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
* Parties to provide adequate civil and criminal remedies that are specific to TPM infringements, i.e. treat these as separate offenses form "general" copyright infringements.
* TPM infringements would be: (i) prohibition of circumvention of access controls and; (ii) prohibition of manufacture and trafficking of circumventing DRM devices.
* There will be exceptions to these prohibitions available to ACTA members.
* "Fair use" will not be circumscribed.
* There will be no obligation for hardware manufacturers to ensure interoperability of TPMs.

Section 5: Will focus on Rights' Management Language inspired by US-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement (article 4.13)5, as well as by the WIPO Internet Treaties (articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
* Parties to provide adequate civil and criminal remedies for rights' management infringements.
* Right' management infringements would be stripping (works?) of rights' management information.

Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.

The TPM infringement section is where the studios have a region encoded in your DVD player so you can not play a disc encoded from another region. This would stop wholesale shipping of copied movies from say Australia to the U.S. or Europe.

A licensing fee is paid by the manufacturers to the studios for each machine sold with that DRM decrypting code. A DVD player retails at Wal-Mart for $30. My cost to buy the codes to allow movies to play on my Linux computer is $35.

In the U.S the "fair use" doctrine allows me to play my legally purchased movie on my legally purchased computer. I could bypass DRM to accomplish this but it is a grey area which restricts the ability of Linux systems to be more available on campus to freely distribute educational materials. And this DRM law slows down market penetration from operating systems manufacturers like Novell Corporation (a European company) and Red Hat (an U.S.A. company).

!Here comes the truth baby, like it's never been told in print or they'll come after me!:
!A Truth World Premier On ATS!

DRM Regional Coding is a Crappy(tm) system. Many highly paid professionals from the software and hardware system developers from around the world were paid millions of dollars by the studios to develop a copy protection system. The manufacturers devised a way to make themselves money while ignoring the needs of the business traveller and tourism in general.
The studios then spent more millions to get lawyers to back up their flimsy system with laws further designed to make manufacturers money while ignoring the way real world customers use media. And they harmed expansion of technology by the billions of dollars in the process.

Now we have the lawyers trying to impose the most restrictive protections of Crappy(tm) DRM on the whole world.

The news used in this thread is made possible by the GNU Public License. The GNU license was brought about by the needs of the Linux Free Software Foundation.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

The difference is not non existant one iy is illegal (Downloading).
If I want a song for my MP3 player and my cd player should I be required to buy the same thing twice. No. And no one is requiring you to buy anything unlike Obamas healthcare.
"I hope artists will provide their music for free and have a little donation button".
I'll tell you what since it is your idea why don't you try it our at your job first? Then let us know if it works. I'll even provide the button.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by ratqueen

Will you share your paycheck with us then?
Any store will allow you to sample their music. You can sample music online.
Join a commune. They love to set in circles and SHARE and sing music.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by rick1
The difference is not non existant one iy is illegal (Downloading).

So someone getting the music for free from a website like youtube where the company has legally uploaded it and doesn't get any real income from it is ok, but getting it for free from another source is wrong because it's illegal.

Legality and morality do not always go hand in hand. There is no logic to your argument, if a song can be gotten for free legally (youtube) then where is the logic in making alternative methods illegal?

Originally posted by rick1
If I want a song for my MP3 player and my cd player should I be required to buy the same thing twice. No. And no one is requiring you to buy anything unlike Obamas healthcare.

Why are you bringing up Obama's healthcare? This is a thread about internet freedom and currently we are discussing downloading music.

Originally posted by rick1
I'll tell you what since it is your idea why don't you try it our at your job first? Then let us know if it works. I'll even provide the button.

The difference is that random people are unlikely to give a donation to a biology student

People will donate to artists though.

Even so you are not being a part of the solution, you are stuck in the same limited mindset that the record industry is. The music will continue to be shared, there is no way to stop it so the companies and artists can make a choice. Either move with the times and make it profitable or continue to lobby government to make new, unenforcable laws.

Let me give you a history of file sharing.

First we had Napster (well there were a few things before), still they are the ones who put sharing on the world stage. The companies went after them and suceeded.

Then came the private servers. These were based in all sorts of countries that didn't have stringent file sharing laws and you had to agree when you joined the server that you were not a member of law enforcement or looking to prosecute anyone on the server. Thse servers still exist but they aren't used as much.

Then came torrents and file sharing really took off as it became easier and broadband speeds and usage increased. All the while the usenet groups have existed and now they're getting more traffic as the speeds are insanely quick.

I would point out that not all downloading is illegal, many legal things are shared on such services. The reason i bring this history up is to show you how the technology moves on once it is difficult to use safely. The record companies need to adapt.

Check out services like spotify, it's a great idea.

Or how about this, artists providing their music for free!

6GB of Free Music

The South by Southwest (SXSW) music festival is one of the largest and most popular in the United States. For the fifth year in a row, SXSW has released a DRM-free, RIAA-safe collection of songs totaling 6 GB, which can all be downloaded for free, thanks to BitTorrent.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Usenet is the best, could they track people using newsgroups as much as torrents,rapidshare etc? Using SSL i imagine they couldn't, not easily anyway...newsgroups are very cheap too boot, $25 for 180gb is a good deal. Off topic slightly. I personally think governments are going to bite off more than they can chew, while they can accumulate the data, using it in a precise, meaningful way will be a nightmare. I still think social sites like myspace,bebo,facebook are the biggest things people should worry about...i despise them, even moreso when people you know put up info or pics of yourself when you don't even have an account. Im paranoid

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in