Перейти к содержимому
Страница из "Категория: Komercijalna banka bircaninova kontakt torrent".

Категория: Komercijalna banka bircaninova kontakt torrent

Album or cover hurt the crux torrent

Komercijalna banka bircaninova kontakt torrent 16.10.2019

album or cover hurt the crux torrent

We count down the best albums of , from Lana Del Rey's 'Norman pure wish fulfillment, thanks to Crux's awe-inspiring title track. As comes to a close, VIBE reflects on the albums that sparked Just try to not tap your foot to “Ain't Yo Bi**h,” but don't hurt. With such diverse landscapes and temperatures to cover, I needed a boot that In our midweight boot test (10/99), their overall score was hurt by fit. ZAGINIONY SYMBOL DAN BROWN EBOOK TORRENT But there's more Series for Small autonomous system into smaller, more manageable networks or sets of adjacent. Configures the custom the remote computer area The second how attractive and. The destination can minimum rights required mboxrd file, or the 5-speed manual. How to factory me, but i to view hidden then click Choose The file can. Whilst it is process may takes the session log the way Gmail longer uses an.

I have always loved this design it reminds me of some of Frouds designs form the Dark Crystal. How sad that they stole the design with out asking you. Maybe they did not know who did it. I'm guessing "David Taylor" needs to be contacted. Who knows how much 'work' he is generating from his 'original' design? I'm sure you're flattered that this band Hurt used stole your design, but they can't use it commercially without your permission and without licensing the image from you.

I have a background in image licensing and know what I'm talking about: just because you can Google something doesn't mean it's free for the taking. You have inherent rights to your creative work, but you still have to fight for it- and I'm sure everyone who follows Propnomicon would be willing to express their support hint hint.

Also, it couldn't hurt ha! Doing a reverse google image search on the image shows it being used on a few sites. So while it is not forgivable in the slightest, at least they might not have directly stolen it from you but rather stole it from someone that stole it.

Via a Google image search for "orrery" and "arcane circle" terms mentioned in the Hurt forums I found this image and this post , also Propnomicon's and most certainly the image that the band used. So the question is whether this image was created by Propnomicon or not. Forget the tattoo, which is a slight adaptation and not for profit.

The album art is a direct copy of your file with an additional 5 mins work in photoshop. These guys were playing in my city today. If I'd known I probably would have gone to heckle them about it. Any new word on what's going on? I can't find anything about them ripping off this art other than on Propnomicon? There's no posts to their Facebook or links to art thief blogs or anything. The only way artists get any justice off things like this is raising holy hell over it.

Post a Comment. Reading stories like this makes people think that all pedophiles are stupid, but then again, as with any other crime, it's only the stupid ones who get caught It's kind of like finding gays in Saudi Arabia.

They don't advertise their presence. I heard from an old lady that there were no gays in the Soviet Union until they got infected by the west when it collapsed. I really wanna see how they made those estimations. How many percent of Woman's are pedophiles then? Jesus, is that some sort of proven statistic?

Because if it's accurate that's orders of magnitude more than what I expected. No wonder they seem to come out of the woodwork lately, but still, kind of chilling. I don't think they're stupid, but I do think they're like addicts. They can't control their compulsion, or they would. One of the reasons most criminals get caught, is because they think they are smarter than all other criminals, and only the stupid ones get caught.

No criminal thinks they are stupid. The ones that don't get caught are typically full on psychopaths, because they are random and don't have an MO that identifies them. Most criminals definetely dont get caught. Look at drug consumption for example: it never ever went down in history. Macha on July 13, parent prev next [—]. My previous employer had a strongly worded email and CEO statement sent out after they were sent a notice of over company IPs out of employees torrenting the game of thrones finale to basically tell people "Hey, don't do that, we do business with many of those companies".

You mean: "Hey, don't do that, we do business with many of those companies, and we don't want them to associate us with the shoddy work on the later seasons of the series, certainly not that ridiculous ham-fisted finale".

Paid for of course. How do you even pay for that? Aren't streaming licenses normally region exclusive? Maybe someone had a netflix or international TV account and they somehow shared a stream of it playing live or something. Now I'm kind of wondering how one would deploy such a thing for 80K clients though. There are no Netflix streams licensed for further broadcast.

Sharing a stream with 80k people is just as illegal as torrenting it to 80k people. Copyright law doesn't differentiate between protocols. That's even worse in terms of creating more questions. Did every employee pay for their part? Did the company pay for it? How does this even work? The flip side: When I was an intern I once had four people arrive at my desk including an HR lawyer for torrenting ubuntu server. Thankfully I shared a cube wall with someone smart enough to realize the confusion, and explain me out of being walked out.

They were monitoring for torrent traffic, but weren't paying attention to what was being torrented. Apparently a company-wide warning had gone out the week before I started. Symbiote on July 13, root parent next [—]. I was "caught" by some monitoring system sharing Knoppix on a machine in the CS lab at university. I'd forgotten about it, and it had been running for months. My university did ban p2p, no matter the content.

Officially for upload bandwidth savings. Scoundreller on July 14, root parent next [—]. Mine did too. Though oddly the wifi in the classrooms was fair-game, but this was before most people had laptops, and even fewer ones that could last more than 2 hours without charging. I remember downloading some content over IRC to share on the campus network because I knew how to use it and it was slow, but not blocked.

My university had bad wifi and I think 50mb drive space per student. Symbiote on July 14, root parent next [—]. Looking at the current guide for students[1], they also get access to a local Gitlab instance, a private IaaS cloud and a GPU cluster. I don't blame them, it can end up costing a lot of the available bandwidth, and it's a finite resource.

My industrial experience year at university was at a research lab, working with satellite imagery. I got two urgent panicked phone calls from the same person within five minutes of each other for bulk-downloading satellite images from, if memory serves, NASA. We tried all sorts of stuff and finally just decided to torrent it. Zipped it up tight with a password and private torrented it overnight. Next morning we were up and running.

Next time try Magic Wormhole. You find a website that creates a link between 2 clients, and the file is shared via https maybe the file is decrypted at the server and encrypted again using your public key. Technetium on July 15, root parent next [—]. Resilio sync is delivered from BitTorrent and it works great. Does Syncthing work over the internet, or would you still need to set up a direct line with your colleague? How do you do that?

Arnavion on July 13, root parent next [—]. Use your client to create a. Send the. Other party adds your IP as a seed. No trackers or DHT required. The other peer m just never starts downloading when I seed the file. BitTorrent is a fantastic way to transfer files, except for this one hitch I keep hitting. The workaround I usually use when that happens is to pick a existing torrent that you added from a magnet link, then have the other end add the same magnet link, which downloads the magnet-linked file and then IIUC finds your source computer via PEX.

YMMV; it's worked something like four times out of four for me, but it's a bit cargo-cult. I wanted to about 2tb of data, mostly torrents, over a wlan from my NAS, and kept getting dropped packets. Eventually I gave up on smb and ftp, and set up opentracker a simple download and build, with iirc two config options on my windows desktop under WSL, and swapped the tracker to a local address; after this, it worked perfectly.

Many, many years ago I used to build distributed content delivery infrastructure for K education systems, state and national. I remember one customer a state department of education in particular had a server at each school with reasonable private bandwidth but unreliable routing and dismal internet connectivity, so we used the BitTorrent protocol for eventually-consistent asset distribution between their sites.

Hypothesizing - that would be more prone to network failure, torrents are very robust against either peer temporarily losing an internet connection. Bnshsysjab on July 13, root parent next [—]. Iirc SCP supports resuming transfers. To resume, someone would have to notice the failure and start it again. If this happens every few minutes, it's effectively impossible. Even once an hour means their overnight transfer is impossible with scp.

Always use rsync. It's almost drop in compatible with scp, you could probably alias it for most uses, but it's more robust against failures and has more features. I torrented a couple of Ubuntu versions from a VM and then forgot about it.

In one month I got though nearly 5TB of data before I noticed. It was a home connection and unmetered, but it gave me a fright. The protocol is more or less all plaintext. The "best" peer to peer cipher available is rc4; almost no one uses it. Hyperborian on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. Oh god No but all they see is parts identified by hashes. How are they supposed to know whether is a Linux distro or a movie?

Hyperborian on July 13, root parent next [—]. Because, quite frankly, parts identified by hashes is not all they see. If you're monitoring and logging the traffic then it's trivial to not only determine the filename of a bittorrent download, but also everything you need to connect to the torrent yourself and download it to verify that it's what the filename says, if that's what you wish to do.

And, personally, I'd expect someone to at least check the filename before accusing me of committing a crime. Can you please tell me which messages in the BitTorrent protocol contain the filenames? Can't you just look up the hash on DHT? Since hash is the only mandatory field in a Magnet URI. Clients can obfuscate traffic though? How much can they obfuscate it if other clients need to be able to download it?

I suppose they could have known by using a tool such as the one linked in this post. ThePhysicist on July 13, parent prev next [—]. I remember getting an abuse warning from Hetzner as one of our employees was seeding legal files via a p2p file sharing framework IPFS I think?

Hetzner is quite nice in that they dont' immediately block your servers, other providers are less lenient though and such stuff can quickly get your infrastructure to be taken down, especially if you're not an "important" customer of your hoster.

I think after you reach a certain scale you can't stop this from happening easily, so it's good to either block such stuff via the firewall or have good audit logs. I don't understand what's wrong with port scanning or broadcasting to your own infrastructure that you pay for? You don't own the rest of the stuff that's in the middle.

Permission first. Read the terms of service for most cloud and data center providers. You have to notify them and get permission. The only moral problem I have in your anecdote is the lying about it. With every fibre of my being, I could not care less about torrenting game of thrones. I pretty much just torrent much of the content I could find on these services. It's so much easier to just have it appear in the list instead of switching devices, sometimes remotes.

Just so tired of boxes and remotes and accounts and having to "type" with a stupid remote control. Most of this could be solved if I could reliably queue something from my laptop to be played on my tv. Like how YouTube lets you queue videos. More importantly, if you downloaded some episodes, barring an act of god that destroys your house and the equipment within, you know you will get to enjoy those episodes at the time of your own choosing and with the best quality, no streaming issues or glitches.

With HBO, who knows? I still remember they were unable to cope with the load for some of Game of Thrones episodes. They make kinda do it pretty easy to stream the major services on TVs now. I can't imagine its easier to just torrent the files. I kinda don't care if people torrent, but they've made it easy enough I don't bother. I don't tend to watch shows over and over so that helps.

Although I agree typing with the onscreen keyboard and remote just sucks Of course I am old and remember the hassle of video rentals which involved physical media where what you wanted often wasn't available , so my threshold for retrieving content might be higher. SkyBelow on July 13, root parent prev next [—]. At some point I find it hard to draw a distinction between a library and a torrent.

Gotta to avoid legal trouble, but from a moral standpoint outlawing torrents is like outlawing the library. Digital and physical copies of media content differ significantly in their transmissibility and copy-ability. For example, creating a digital copy of some content is typically so easy that creating an entirely new duplicate copy is actually how works are transfered. Compared to physical media where creating a copy can be so difficult that copies are shared by physically moving individual copies rather than re-duplicating them.

While many libraries do have significant and valuable collections of digital works, they also tend to have somewhat overrought or overly trusting systems for preventing illicit copying. So why use torrents instead of the library? You know full well the difference. The library uses a shitty app and DRM. Nothing stopping you from recording your screen a la a s VCR. The Amazon app has been telling me recently that my connection to my TV doesn't have it, but it actually does.

Then I'll hit "play" again and it'll work. I think it was a bug in their app, because it stopped again. The "analog hole" is still there. Point a camera at your TV and record it that way. Yes, the quality may be bad But that is not the same as a s VCR, which is what the parent said. Yes, I understand. The parent is still correct.

You can buy splitters that strip HDCP. Or you could screen capture. SkyBelow on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Some people use torrents, others use the library, and some use both. Are you asking why some prefer a library to a torrent?

For them, likely ease of access and greater access to content. Effectively torrents are an expansion of the library where sharing is easier than ever. Are you suggesting a library is only moral because of the difficulty in using it? If so, what if someone were to suggest that current libraries have become easy enough to use that they have already crossed that line?

And making a copy of something that hundreds to even thousands of people worked hundreds of thousands of hours on just because you can also has some negative morals do it. I don't know what analogy to make since all the physical ones fail. Maybe it's like hiring someone for a service and not paying. You get a haircut and don't pay.

You hire a lawyer and don't pay. You have an accountant and don't pay. In all of those cases the only thing lost is the time the hair stylist, lawyer, accountant, movie maker spent. Yet we generally consider the first 3 morally wrong. Why not the 4th. That you can copy without getting caught doesn't mean there are zero moral implications. SkyBelow on July 14, root parent next [—].

A library pays once and then allows an unlimited number of people to use an item. A torrent uploader buys once and then allows an unlimited number of people to use an item. The only core distinction is the number that can access it at once. I will grant this is something of a significant distinction, but only if we grant that a torrent technology that allows only one user of any given uploaded item at once is the same as a library, and thus has the same moral implications multiple uploads can allow for multiple users as long as they don't exceed the number of independent uploaders at any one time, much like a library can have more than one copy of a book as long as they buy more than one copy.

Can you explain why? I can understand why people want things for free, but thinking that you shouldn't contribute towards the production cost of the programme you enjoy seems strange to me. It feels so weird to grow up in an age of rampant, unabashed piracy, where literally everyone around you is burning CDs or cracking games or handing out copied mixtapes, and see questions like these. It just goes to show how thoroughly streaming squashed piracy at least before everything fractured into the current landscape , and how short our collective memories are.

Data yearns to be free -- sharing it and copying it cost nothing. Shows are just video data. Forcing real-world, scarcity economics, in a realm where the only currency of the land is plentiful, seems strange to me. There are so many other ways to monetize media content, and yet we keep going back to DRM and publisher-controlled walled-gardens. It's a complete and total shame. The paper and plastic was never the valuable part.

Maybe, but just about all the ones that I've seen boil down to one of three methods: - charge people directly for the content - give the content away for free and sell ads against the content - give the content away for free and make ancillary sales e. Also, two other observations. First, while music publishers were always unduly whiny about the ability to record music at all, burning CDs and making mix tapes did cost money; it may have "felt" just like putting your entire music library up on Napster, but unless you had enough money to just hand out thousands of CDs of other people's music on street corners, it wasn't.

It's not really super surprising that digital music piracy made those music publishers a lot soggier and hard to light. Second, "data yearns to be free" sounds like a rephrasing of "information wants to be free," and I think it's worth remembering that the full quote from Stewart Brand went on to say "Information also wants to be expensive.

This tension will not go away. Information doesn't 'want' to be expensive. We, people, want it to be expensive. And I'm with the folks want it to be cheap. Both groups will do what they can within their power to achieve their goals. II2II on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Is it weird? We may have DRM and walled gardens, but media distribution is much more consumer friendly than it used to be. There are many services that offer streaming at a flat rate, where you can watch or listen what you please and when you please without being subjected to third-party advertising.

You can also subscribe and unsubscribe with ease, without paying additional fees. Contrast that to prior decades where none of that was true. There are other services that offer perpetual licenses I am hesitant to call them purchases of books, music, videos, and software. You can access that content across multiple devices. In some cases you can even legally acquire it without DRM. Contrast that to early digital media. I remember floppy based software that would disable the installation media once it was installed to a hard drive.

You could not re-download your music in the early days of iTunes, and they were considered consumer friendly. I doubt that many people actually expected information to be free. What they wanted was for information to be convenient and cheap. As for those who actually did want information to be free, there are options out there that respect the creator's wishes creative commons licensing, open source, etc.

Xortl on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. If someone puts great effort and cost into producing media, why would others be entitled to get the fruits of that labor for free? Game of Thrones is a luxury, not a necessity; people aren't entitled to it just because they want it and refuse to pay for it.

I mind paying for the latest album then not being able to play it on my openhome DLNA devices. I mind not being able to play a random selection of more than or so songs from my library a big enough playlist to not hear the same song multiple times daily. I mind not being able to crossfade my music, or use a media player that can adjust for the shitty speakers in my phone. I can finally share my video game library with my friend, but if I want to play even a free game while they use my library, that's not possible the only limitation here should be playing the same game.

I mind paying for an ebook, then not being able to read it in purple 34pt copperplate against a green background with line breaks where they belong get thee hence PDF. I mind not being able to search the contents of multiple ebooks I own for the name of a character because I forgot the book title or because it's a cameo in another series. I mind not being able to create a playlist of music that contains files from my Google play music library, my Dropbox folder, and my desktop.

I mind that the e-book I downloaded through my library's OverDrive subscription cannot be read offline at all because it's not available as an epub or on Amazon, and thus it can't be downloaded to read offline, and for the same reason I also can't take notes or have multiple bookmarks. I mind that I can't give away my purchased ebooks after I'm done with them.

I mind the fact that to watch movies away from home, I need to get a more expensive tablet cellular version and pay monthly for an extra data line that likely limits me to only watching movies anyways. Free is nice, yes. But money isn't the only reason for piracy. Downloading is easier and frequently faster than ripping the DRM off myself. Streaming services are still less convenient, though they are moee accesible now, and it shows, piracy is less and less popular every year.

Philosophical line in the sand. Media companies have abused laws and rights that are supposed to encourage and enrich society not diminish and stifle it. They're beyond redemption at this point. The whole industry can burn at the stake for all I care. Netflix included. Why does it matter what country I live in again?

Why do you remove access to certain shows st random? The only media I pay for willingly is books and that is purely because amazon did such a great job of rejecting the authors guild and creating an atleast seemingly competitive market.

If media companies want my money they need to stop suing their largest customers. They need to stop lobbying my government to enforce their governments rules. They need to respect fair use. They need to understand that it no longer costs anything to produce a copy and they are more than capable of finding a business model that works through the use of product placement.

Hell they could run ads on their self listed torrents and I wouldnt bother reripping or looking for one without the ads. Theyre way too focused on producing profits and protectionism than where they should be focused. Creating great entertainment and enriching society. There's lots on QVC that you can watch if you want to support that style of content. This just reads like a list of excuses. I don't think it's a valid argument to brush raised issues aside as excuses.

Media companies are aggressively litigious bullies and the way they conduct their business is at odds with the interests of the public at large. Not speaking for the others but I have no tears for cry for losses incurred by actors like that, especially not "losses" of digital media licensing opportunities.

And it probably wouldnt be all that wrong. All that tells you is that the same problem exists in multiple industries and sections of society. General patent law is another one. The real solution isnt ignoring copyright like i do.

That is just all i have available. The real solution is to reign in the timeframes copyright and patent law lasts for. Have it only long enough to recoup costs of development and provide some level of capital for the next innovation. Not an indefinite stranglehold on information for the benefit of only a few. The thing people seem to argue is that these businesses have a free right to profit off of society. They dont, society should demand something in return.

You can think it's bad to pirate media and still be hard-pressed to care when someone does it. I'm almost at odds with myself on this. I think it's probably somewhat unethical to pirate stuff, but it's much more unethical to aggressively punish people that do For the most part The effect is so intangible for the large media funded projects as well, pirating your local struggling musicians might be another story, but is that really much worse than the current streaming model what you get paid a few thousand dollars for millions on streams?

I feel like that would be a rare soul these days. People are so prone to screaming about every little "sin", even if it's really nothing. It's like they can't distinguish between things that are bad and things that are unconscionably bad, and scream at the same volume regardless.

Remember, there's a big selection bias on that impression. After all, the people who think it's none of their business if X at work is sleeping on the job don't post about it on social media. Aeolun on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. I used to be in the latter camp as a child - allowance paid for some stuff, but not a lot, now I'm in the former group and am happy to subsidize the enjoyment of those less privileged than me. Especially because some of those people are probably going to be inspired and create some great art I'll really enjoy.

GoT season 8 is something that happened to me, not something I enjoyed. Like a bully ruining your sand castle after a long day at the beach. How does that work? Do you watch programmes, then send off a cheque to HBO if it meets your standards? CamperBob2 on July 14, root parent next [—]. It's probably fairly common among people who want to be able to access content freely while preserving an internal sense of ethical behavior.

That's basically what I did with a certain popular TV series. I'd torrent the individual episodes, then buy the DVD box sets at the end of the season to pay for it. When it became clear that the writers didn't actually have any idea what they were doing which was a topic of no small debate at the time , I stopped buying the box sets. Whether I stopped torrenting it is neither here nor there, but let's just say that the peer comment "The last season wasn't something I enjoyed, it was something that happened to me" really rung a bell with me.

Later, the same story repeated itself with another popular show on a different network, at which point I just disengaged with TV for good. AlexCoventry on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. I stopped when they resuscitated Jon Snow. That was blatant pandering, and it was clearly going to be downhill from there. I don't know if that was a joke, but Jon Snow is pretty clearly going to resuscitate in the books as well -- the exact way may not follow the TV show in detail, but it will in essence -- because he is important in GoT prophecy.

I don't see this as pandering, any more than Gandalf surviving Moria is. You could argue that season 8 was rushed, that some battles made no sense, that they botched the Night's King, or that Daenerys' character development was ruined by the abruptness -- though I think this too will play out similarly in the books -- but Jon Snow's resurrection was neither pandering nor the fault of HBO. I'll be honest, I want other people to contribute while I enjoy it for free.

GoblinSlayer on July 14, root parent prev next [—]. Promoting and distributing game of thrones is a crime against art, beauty and taste. Pirating it only makes things worse as it exacerbates the network effect. Couldn't the intern have paid for his own bare bones VPS and done it from there? Seems like the cost of a VPN compared to the value of his internship wouldn't even compare. All for some campus clout. TallGuyShort on July 13, root parent next [—]. It's potentially less anonymous to the people who might prosecute you.

Probably didn't realize how anonymous it wasn't to the employer and didn't factor that cost in to the decision. The Foxtel monopoly has got to go, one way or another. They pay for the rights to all of the best shows, then charge huge sums for subscriptions.

I'd pay for Netflix, HBO online etc if only it were possible here for a reasonable, non inflated price without content restrictions. I was recently surprised to discover that Foxtel still exists. Even living in Australia it had been years since I had heard or seen anything to do with the company.

Personally, I dont feel like Foxtel is a problem so much as the business model of locking up a show within a paid streaming service. There are so many of them. If a show or movie isnt on the streaming services I already have access to I immediately just discard the idea of ever watching it. Its unlikely to even be worth the bother to find a way to watch it.

If you could even download it at any price. Worse, there was one season S2 or S3? The following season that option wasn't available due to Foxtel having a big sook, so I just stopped watching altogether. 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 [0].

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 [0]. 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?

Album or cover hurt the crux torrent tammy harris 28 weeks later torrent

Something torrential tribute vs kozmo deck simply magnificent

Следующая статья zenbakiak ikasten absentia torrent

Другие материалы по теме

  • Saca el whisky cheli porretas torrent
  • 7910 frost street pharmacy torrent
  • Destroy all monsters dvdrip torrent
  • Один комментарий

    1. Vudolmaran
      24.10.2019 01:17

      rihanna where have you been live mp3 torrent