---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 10:48 AM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 10:48 AM ----------
How could this ever possibly enforced?
Using the bittorrent protocol period? That would last about an hour.
Using bittorrent for certain file types? Also an hour.
Certain keywords being used? Probably an hour.
Encrypting your shit and using a vpn like a smart person would be this entirely pointless still.
a leaked internal training memo published by Torrent Freak, said it would block customer access to frequently visited websites “until they complete an online copyright course;”
I laughed so hard.
Filesharing, not piracy. Here is a scenario.
Person x downloads media y from website z. Did this person just steal? The answer is no they did not; the person was shared the media.
A lot of times people define stealing as "Getting something that's not yours, without paying for it". Well that definition could include sharing, taking something from the side of the road with a "free sign" on it, being lent a DVD, or a variety of other objects.
The real definition of stealing is "Taking something unwillingly from the owner". Now with this definition there are some red flags going up, and some screaming that goes something like "But teh companies are loosing moneys by you're illegally downloads!" You are absolutely wrong poorly written quote! The sharing of media is fair use in the United States; if I have a DVD I'm allowed to lend it to whomever I like, me lending that DVD does not hurt the distributor of it at all. All I have taken from the distributor is the chance that the person I lent the DVD to would buy that DVD from the distributor. Note that this is a chance not 100%, just because I choose not to lend the DVD does not mean that the person is now going to automatically buy the DVD, they could decide that the DVD isn't worth their $20. This physical media scenario should hold true for the internet, but for some reason it does not.
The main argument that media companies make is that it's not sharing because the person obtains an additional copy of the material. And while it might not be sharing, it most certainly is not stealing. It is not affecting the company's sales as explained above, and it is not costing the company any money either. This is another area of intellectual property that gets me: the steam vs origin thing. Origin got pissy at Steam for selling games on sale. Origin claimed that this devalued its intellectual property. In the sale of virtual media it costs a negligible amount to produce an additional copy of something, once development costs have been payed back, there are no variable costs to pay back, only fixed costs such as building costs, server maintenance, salaries, etc... Marginal Costs in this business model are extremely low, allowing for a large amount of profit after development costs have been made back.
edit: Down with the wall of text that once was.
i5 2500k Powercolor HD 6950
8gb 1600mhz RAM
96gb Kingston SSD, 1TB Caviar Black 64mb cache
Basic P67 motherboard
800 watt PSU
NZXT Phantom Case: If you think this case is ugly, you are wrong.
Yes you get adverts and what not, but they are just that, adverts, full of highlights to make the product look better than it is.
break the law to prevent people breaking a different law
Thing these companies refuse to acknowledge is the profit pirating actually generates for them. About 75% of my DVD collection comes from material I first watched online, anyone else here own firefly on DVD but never saw it on TV?
These companies are just ignorant fools desperate to milk every last cent they can, there is a reason people pirate before they pay and quite simply the majority of products are not worth the premium price tag they put on things.
They are also not breaking "my internet" they are breaking the internet of the household. Why should I be responsible if my potential 20 years old son downloaded something from his computer using my internet?
They can't do shit like that.
I still want to know how its possible to use dpi on fucking encrypted traffic, Because you can't.
This just the 50th useless law thats been introduced against piracy that does literally nothing. Nobody with half a brain will ever torrent without using a vpn and encryption.
---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 12:19 PM ----------
In addition, in dormitories generally students have to register with the universities internet in order to gain access.
In my day, people pirated by giving friends disks for games.
Now you sit anonymously at home and download from a person you don't even know.
They are just encouraging people to go out and make friends - if you copy using USB drive, they won't punish you.
I'm against piracy overall, but I think there can be exceptions for kids. ISP's have no way of knowing who's doing what, and so this seems reasonable.
I have a 60gb cap and thats the largest I can possibly get.
Its not an issue of bandwidth being used. Today bandwidth is 1/1000th the price of the electricity used to have it travel. Maybe that would have been true in 1995 but not today. These companies have been price gouging for the last decade and refuse to upgrade their infrastructure and their response to pretty much every problem where they have a monopoly is "don't like it? Move." And are now selling out their customers to the blood thirsty government who will ruin lives without discrimination.
Can google own the world yet?
considering there actually need to be a court case to decide if you pirated or not do we really think isps are going to start funding law suits and then losing customers.. so not only does it cost them money to start pointing the finger, they also lose a customer after the fact, one they probably will never get back..
yeah this sounds like win win situation :/