ISPs Will 'Break Your Internet' If They Catch You Pirating

[Deleted]

Apparently 17.62% of the voters are willing to be judged without a trial.

[Knight Gil]

The idea of music artists not making it big without companies seems to me to now be an archaic statement. The internet allows for free publicity. If you're lucky, or really that good, or publicised well across media sharing websites it is plausible you could extract a following through that. The companies simply exist to monopolise the industry and publicise their own artists.

Companies are damn good at making money and publicising stuff. Artists aren't. Sure, you can pull an Artic Monkeys and get lucky and become popular on the internet, but that's a huge exception, not the rule, and even then, they just got things really started when companies kicked in. No, that's not an archaic statement, that's how things really are.

Fine, so I go to an authorized publisher. So they say "well ok, we'll take 90% of earnings for stuff" but I say "what stuff? I have written the book, I can copy it a few thousand times myself, I have paper, I have a distribution way", and the company says "well how about promotion?" but I don't want promotion.

In the end, all you pay for is the benefit of having the emblem of the company that distributed your book on your knowledge, your creativity, your imagination.
And for this you pay a mere 90% at least. That's not fair at all.

So it isn't fair that a company is promoting your work and using part of the money to pay the workers who made it all possible in the first place? I mean, not even the most scumbag bankers get 100% of their profits, knowing that they can't get success without a properly paid working force. If you worked in a bakery shop, do you expect to be paid 100% of a cookie that you made yourself? Of course not

No right at all. But what are you going to do about it as a company?
You can't stop it, you can't do anything about it.

Can't stop it? Tell that to the people who put their tinfoil hats on whenever they hear about a new measure against piracy. That obviously shows that it is possible to do anything about it, they just don't want it and start whining to get their way

My response is: Are you really going to care if people who weren't going to buy your creations get them for free while simultaneously spreading their name to others who may in turn buy them? Are you going to complain about those who pirate your work and then buy it because they like it?

Yes, because ultimately, that is an oxymoron. You wouldn't want other people to use your service / goods without paying. Don't expect others to feel otherwise

'Another company' doesn't exist in a fucking lot of places.

If you're living in a third world country, you're probably right.

[Ethes]

Apparently 17.62% of the voters are willing to be judged without a trial.

This very much!

[Barnabas]

This makes me laugh so hard... I almost fell of my chair. So ISPs want to spy on my communications to find an argument to throttle my download speed )or stop my downloads completely) in order to make more profit?

Can someone please tell the gentlemen running these companies that without file sharing/software piracy noone needs unlimited bandwith and 100Mbps connections? I mean... if I can only use the internet for games and reading the news I most definitely won't be paying 50€ / month... These actions if enforced would only hurt the ISPs themselves as people who see themselves prevented from downloading would change provider or cancel/downgrade their subscriptions.

Nope there are plenty of people that don't "pirate" that will still need more than basic internet to get by. No ISP wants file sharers on their network anyway. Too much bs to make it worth it when they want licenses for content for other services they offer besides high speed internet. ISP rather have the guy that watches netflix 24/7 to have the bandwidth than someone stealing a video game or whatever.

[Deatheryn]

What's funny to me is that these entertainment companies blame their dismal numbers on pirating when in fact their sales suck because their product sucks. Stop pirating 100% and their sales numbers are still gonna be garbage.
When they finally make a product worth buying then maybe someone will actually buy it!

[Deleted]

Companies are damn good at making money and publicising stuff. Artists aren't. Sure, you can pull an Artic Monkeys and get lucky and become popular on the internet, but that's a huge exception, not the rule, and even then, they just got things really started when companies kicked in. No, that's not an archaic statement, that's how things really are.

I am sorry but it is archaic and technologically outdated. It is free or extremely cheap to promote and mass produce your stuff now. The internet allows for anything to be shared with triviality. In terms of music, the only reason that there is such a huge gap between 'mainstream' artists who are commercially successfull and thus rich and underground artists is because of the construct set up by the record labels and general populace apathy and/or ignorance. Only specific styles of music are mass-produced with extreme publicity, radio & television play (all provided by record labels). Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet more independent music and under-produced or unknown music has become slowly, but surely more prevalent and it is thus slowly chipping away at their sales.

[Deleted]

I don't support internet surveillance or censorship of any kind. It's wrong and sick to treat the entire population like monsters.

Apparently 17.62% of the voters are willing to be judged without a trial.

Unfortunately it seems like this is the case and i can't believe how anyone could've missed this. Everyone have the right to stand in court, no matter what.

[stumpy]

This is news to people?

[poser765]

Yes, because ultimately, that is an oxymoron. You wouldn't want other people to use your service / goods without paying. Don't expect others to feel otherwise

I would imagine any feelings that could be used would be no more than indifferent. If your band makes a CD chances are I am not going to be a paying customer. The bottom line is if i then pirate your band's cd there is a zero sum equation at work here. You never had access to my money. When i pirate your cd you STILL have no access to my money. The status hasn't changed. you might be butthurt INTELLECTUALLY but the reality is I've done nothing to change the status of our relationship.

[Tinykong]

Pirating movies is hardly worth the hassle any more. I can instantly stream new release movies for $2-5 from a multitude of sources, or pay $15 (cheaper than going to the theater) for some movies that are still being shown in theaters.

If I don't feel like streaming, I can get a disc from Redbox for less than $2.

Most music is available for free listening on YouTube.

Software is another matter, however.

[Masark]

Most music is available for free listening on YouTube.

Youtube? THE RIAA DECLARES YOU ARE AN EVIL PIRATE AND SHOULD BURN!

[Tinykong]

Youtube? THE RIAA DECLARES YOU ARE AN EVIL PIRATE AND SHOULD BURN!

I'm sure it's a legal grey area, but if a record label/artist/business puts their music on YouTube, and YouTube allows me to listen to that music on my computer, and I happen to record that music for my own personal use, where is the harm in that? Not like I can't reload that webpage whenever I want and relisten to it, or record a radio station to a cassette tape (if I still owned one, anyway.)

[Rukentuts]

Youtube? THE RIAA DECLARES YOU ARE AN EVIL PIRATE AND SHOULD BURN!

A lot of the time the publisher and / or band are the ones uploading it...

[Puremallace]

lol fucking seriously. Just throttle the movie download then. It may take longer, but the ISP will not be any wiser. This idea is stupid and easily exploited.

[Twotonsteak]

There's nothing wrong with HuffPost. You make it sound like they point false information. You can Google this information and check to see it's accurate. Just because you don't like their liberal appeal doesn't mean they're intentionally misleading on topics for no reason.

Since you asked

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ng-monitoring/

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/alerts- It explains the program in detail CAS Copyright Alert System

http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-will...irates-121115/ -Admitting reducing speeds for people who pirate stuff. Among other things.

http://torrentfreak.com/att-starts-s...sites-121012/- By a torrent freak shares a leaked memo

Huffington Post is to Dem's what Fox is to the Repub's. It's so obviously one-sided as to be questionable.

And I don't see a problem here. Don't pirate (which you shouldn't be doing anyway) and you won't have a problem.

[Masark]

A lot of the time the publisher and / or band are the ones uploading it...

So? The record labels don't care what the band thinks.

http://www.metalinjection.net/its-ju...rish-fans-sued

[Tinykong]

So? The record labels don't care what the band thinks.

http://www.metalinjection.net/its-ju...rish-fans-sued

He was pointing out that by listening to (and in my opinion, recording) music from YouTube, you are listening to a legal distribution source, when it's uploaded by the copyright holder.

[Deleted]

Well that sucks, apperently filthy rich corporatists don't have enough money yet.

[Knight Gil]

I am sorry but it is archaic and technologically outdated. It is free or extremely cheap to promote and mass produce your stuff now. The internet allows for anything to be shared with triviality. In terms of music, the only reason that there is such a huge gap between 'mainstream' artists who are commercially successfull and thus rich and underground artists is because of the construct set up by the record labels and general populace apathy and/or ignorance.

Not true. Who has the task to make populace less apathetic or ignorant towards a certain kind of music? Companies, cultural programmers, etc. You can't expect people to just go look for underground artists when they have spent their entire lives listening to mainstream music. Tastes are supposed to, and can be, educated. And it isn't artists' task to educate people in order to like their music. It's cultural programmers' task. Artists can't strive without companies, just like companies can't strive without artists. You would never ever hear about bands like The Beatles or Queen if they didn't have good companies / managers covering their backs

I would imagine any feelings that could be used would be no more than indifferent. If your band makes a CD chances are I am not going to be a paying customer. The bottom line is if i then pirate your band's cd there is a zero sum equation at work here. You never had access to my money. When i pirate your cd you STILL have no access to my money. The status hasn't changed. you might be butthurt INTELLECTUALLY but the reality is I've done nothing to change the status of our relationship.

Your argument is terrible, and so fucking infantile...So if I go to a shop and steal a TV, it's fine because if I didn't take it for free, I wouldn't have bought it anyway? What fucking nonsense. In the case you talked about, I would still be the owner of that CD, and if I don't want you to listen to my music without paying, I should have every right to do so. My stuff, my rules.

[nightshark]

If an ISP did this to me, or even threatened to, I'd get a new ISP.

Problem solved.