New anti-piracy system will hit U.S. Internet users next week

reply to post by ausername


Is it stealing if I take your car in the middle of the night and you wake up to find it in your driveway while I'm riding around in an exact replica? As long as you have your property that you paid for, and you didn't lose anything because of me, why should you be worried about what I now have? Since when do ideas have a price tag?

I get it, actors and directors and producers yada yada all need their pay checks so on and so forth...I don't know what to tell you, except that it's not stealing. Someone paid for it, and they decided to gift it to the rest of us. I can guarantee you that most of those developers and actors won't miss a dime. See their restaurant bill? Their three story home? Their other three story home? Their penthouse? Their private jet? Ooh, boy, they lost 5.99 because someone pirated a movie. Wow, there goes a tenth of their gas money.

Sorry. If those people can buy my house and not bat an eye, I don't feel bad about neglecting to fund their lavish lifestyle.

Originally posted by Pervius
The new Intel Insider feature running on Sandy Bridge and other chipsets already monitors everything running through your computer with a server to verify if its copyrighted....and prevents you from using that software.

There was an old version of Windows that came with a Wheezer video and a couple other videos when they were touting their new media player.

The new computer hardware chipsets and Windows 7 won't even allow those videos to be played...even though Microsoft gave you those video's on earlier releases of Windows.

Start buying ALL the pre-2000 computer you can find and restore them. They're now worth their weight in Gold. They are the only systems you now can set up for your music / video collections.

There is already someone disagreeing with you...and that is up to them.

It really started with Millenium and ME. At the time, Windows 2000 professional was still pretty open and safe but that is about the last edition. XP added more monitoring and backdoors and Vista, windows 7 and now 8 are full of hotkeys and backdoors. But feel free to run whatever you want on whatever OS you want...

A problem you will find going retro is many of the new hardware devices are not compatible. I have a 2000 pro machine as a back up and the video card crapped out on it...it was not easy finding a replacement. I ended up getting one and finding an aftermarket driver to make it work. But...it works great so...not complaining.

The older the OS, the less intrusions there are. Everyone who has fallen for the "must have the newest" has unwittingly invited big brother right into you house/life...think real hard about that...

reply to post by Jeremiah65


theres always the option of using hardware virtualization to get around that though

there's always ways around this type of stuff.

VArious highly rated proxies, vpn's + seed boxes

reply to post by Jeremiah65


All of that sounds great, but in many of those instances you actually bought a licence to use a copy of those products, and you also had to at some point in the installation, agree to the terms of use. Which also includes that you will not sell, redistribute or share it.. etc. You know, all of that crap no one ever reads before hitting the agree button?

Is ignorance now also a valid defense for theft?

WOW, someone brought up Morality. about COPYING??

theft is the absence of something. I take your car. or your coat, or your pen. IP "theft" is NOT the absence of something. If I copy the floppy, you still have the floppy I copied. so how is that "taking" anything??


Morality, when it comes to Hollywood OR the music industry. is a JOKE. how many rockers have to take drug test before a concert?
How many hollywood actors are drunks or drug users??

How many Movies have made millions and yet Darth Vader can't be paid, Star wars made no profit...



this is the start of the six strikes law, and the best part, you just have to be accused, NOT CONVICTED of ANY crime. Just accused 6 times and off the net you go.

6 strikes law .
to fight back YOU have to pay 25$ to get reviewed, no exceptions, and no guarantee that you will be found innocent if you are wrongly accused.

So basically: the "content owners" who by the way are surfing the web looking for stuff to download themselves, are going to "alert their ISP" (see something say something!) when they come across "illegal activity" which they are likely also engaging in, and then the ISP will forward the "offender" an alert.

Yeah. Seems likely!

reply to post by ausername


Bah...meaningless grasping...

I should be able to sell my license if I so choose...I have the right to sell my property, anything I have paid for...even if that property is a license sticker on the back of a cd case...as long as I am no longer using it, they can bite it. I "get" your holier than thou position, but I stand by my perfectly legal version of the point. Just like selling a DVD. As long as I am not selling a "copy" but am selling the actual manufactured disc and it's case...it's only one version and it is legal to re-sell.

If I un-install said software, package it back up in it's original packaging and sell the license and the disk to someone else in a yard sale...they will still only be one "registered" copy in use. I know I'm right on this so...you are assuming everyone is trying to pull a fast one and I am showing you the one card that their legal position falls flat on...

I guess that place on the east cost will be doing all the snopping that was put into operation in 2009 with the NSA

Aquaint ("Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence") is being designed to pull information from your phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks such as Facebook and MySpace, GPS devices, cell phones, Google searches, Amazon book purchases and even E-Z Pass toll records to give users of the system information on where you are, what you are doing and what you are thinking.

What are they really looking for instead of priarcy?

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

What does it mean to "own" something? We would need a clear definition of that in an objective sense to then define what "stealing" was, so your question would get pretty philosophical pretty quickly.

Ill tell you what the PTB and large corporations consider as "ownership" though... if they can TAKE it by whatever means works, they own it.

Seems they simply dont like others playing by their own rules.

Seem to me that's what a lot of ordinary people thing "ownership" means: if I write a song and record it and release it as a single, then you can TAKE it by whatever means and then you own it, and I earn nothing for my work.

But I guess that's fair? How dare I think that I should make money through my own creativitity? What an idiot!

CAS System Goes Live, VPN Sales Triple

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by ausername

 

I should be able to sell my license if I so choose...I have the right to sell my property, anything I have paid for...even if that property is a license sticker on the back of a cd case...as long as I am no longer using it, they can bite it. I "get" your holier than thou position, but I stand by my perfectly legal version of the point. Just like selling a DVD. As long as I am not selling a "copy" but am selling the actual manufactured disc and it's case...it's only one version and it is legal to re-sell.

I agree with that, but that isn't what is going on with "sharing" online. Software, movies, music etc.

I'll bet that even you know what that difference is.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

But I guess that's fair? How dare I think that I should make money through my own creativitity? What an idiot!

If you created the work out of greed; a lust for the fleeting and hollow acquisition of material "wealth", it has no ultimate value to begin with, so receiving nothing in exchange for nothing is an equitable exchange. As you suggest, it would indeed be idiotic to assume you should receive something for nothing.

If youve created the work out of a love for beauty, creativity, and love itself; things of true and eternal persistence thus value, youll receive more than you could possibly imagine.

This should really read

"Government trialing internet surveillance and censorship technology under the guise that people sharing digital information with one another all over the world, effectively bypassing taxation border control zones are criminals who are committing crimes and must at all costs be stopped"

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

What does it mean to "own" something? We would need a clear definition of that in an objective sense to then define what "stealing" was, so your question would get pretty philosophical pretty quickly.

Ill tell you what the PTB and large corporations consider as "ownership" though... if they can TAKE it by whatever means works, they own it.

Seems they simply dont like others playing by their own rules.

Seem to me that's what a lot of ordinary people thing "ownership" means: if I write a song and record it and release it as a single, then you can TAKE it by whatever means and then you own it, and I earn nothing for my work.

But I guess that's fair? How dare I think that I should make money through my own creativitity? What an idiot!

If you have dedicated fans stealing from you then perhaps you need to find better fans. The bigger issue is not theft from the honest hardworking artists-that's far and few between, it's the companies crying foul when in fact there's no proof of losses. Remember Lars Ulrich against Napster? Years later he accepted that the times have changed. Companies need to do the same, instead of crying, being corrupt, trying to control everything, they need to adapt. Because their lack of adoption is the loss taken, not file sharing.

reply to post by dreamingawake


Exactly, people consume media differently now, the technology is now available to dictate themselves how this media is delivered and it is the corporations who have utterly failed to adapt to the change in technology that are at fault. Why they are decades behind I do not know, perhaps they thought any radical change would require investment they, perhaps out of pure greed, were just not willing to spend. Instead they continued to gouge the same familiar market they had, in the past, total control over.

Still though, things will get worse before they get better im sure, maybe once governments are enlightened enough to understand allowing people unlimited access to all media any second of the day for free is probably better for humanity than manipulating markets and consumer habits purely for greed the petty politics of control wont be so much of an issue anymore. But then, maybe thats the problem, the control and lack thereof.

reply to post by ausername


You're right and I do know the difference. I was making a point that the legislation is deeper than just file sharing and downloading. There have been several versions of the "anti-piracy" legislation. In nearly all of them, the verbage gets fogged and clouded and if you really read it in depth and can manage your way through the "legal-ese", you will find it's not just about file sharing and downloading...it comes down to the exchange of intellectual property. That was the point I was making and was using one example that their legal speak has not been able to get around...though some are trying to.

The end game will be that you cannot sell your programs, even a single licensed copy that you have uninstalled and are no longer using...as they are trying to make it that you have no rights once you pay for it...this way, every single version is a new sale and not a resell. Do you get what I am talking about now? Say I get a new photo editor and no longer need the one I have. They do not want you to uninstall the old one and sell it...they want every single operating version to be a retail sale. They are not interested in you or I improving our programs and getting rid of the old at minimized loss.

If you think about it, you will see what I am talking about and where this is heading.

As someone who writes little apps now and then for some money on the side, I tend to side with the copyright holders on having civil means to go after someone for damages when violations are gross and they can prove it.

That's the thing. Civil...and then THEY can prove it. It's not a job for Super-Gman, or whatever this Government is becoming.

It's not about the downloading or P2P or anything else of the sort. This is about the technology and methods developed and put into place now to enforce the claimed issue. Dual use anyone??

You know, we CAN have a 100% crime free society. We just need about a 1:3 ratio on Police to citizens with a prison system fit to call a nation within a nation. Just how worthy is the '0 tolerance to all things' and looking to Government to solve all problems on all levels? How much freedom is worth dealing away for the majority of innocent in so many areas, to get a few guilty? That's polar opposite to the founding principle of our legal system too, by the way.

Wow, this is scary stuff. Thanks for the update!

reply to post by Jeremiah65


Of course this is where it is heading, corporations will try to get away with as much as they can get away with - psychiatric analysis of corporations as a whole shows that they mimic the personality of a psychopath. Runaway corporate and government controls combined are going to result in a very sad day for the individual.

In my opinion, freedom of information is one of the most important things that the internet has to offer, and one of the best routes to freedom, but - according to The Art of War thirst for information is one of the most effective ways to keep a population under control.