Why would people who pirate things not use an anonymizing proxy? Is there something about the bidirectional aspect of bittorrent protocol that stops this working?
I tried one for web browsing when they were discussing the establishment of the great firewall of Australia (which failed to eventuate), and while it did slow things down, it seemed to work fine. Websites that guessed at my location would be completely wrong.
There is no such thing. In fact, most anonymizing and/or VPN services flat out state in their TOS that they will respond accordingly to all legal requests for information.
Anyway, it's kind of a waste of breath for us as a community of geeks to bother engaging people (like the journalist writing that article) in conversation when they don't even care enough to put the hyperbole aside and use rational words to discuss the topic. Starting off any discussion with the loaded word "piracy" or "pirate" in the title or opening paragraph is silly and unprofessional. It'd be like someone writing an article about a guy investigating government corruption by calling him an "anti-government terrorist" and asking him "why do you hate 'Merica?!"
As for "copyright infringement", and "file sharing", there's little point in people getting their panties in a twist. Technology evolves and so do industries. We already have services like MOG and NETFLIX, which replace what a lot of questionable activities used to provide, for a combined total of a whopping $13 USD/mo. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions. When that finally happens, the idea of bothering with file sharing becomes silly unless you are really and truly destitute. For everyone else, it'd be absurd to waste precious time finding and downloading crap via these other methods when they could just pay $5 for an almost limitless library of music or $10 for an endless library of movies and television. The only possible exception will remain books, where there seems to be no equivalent and you'll be stuck paying the $30-$60 per book that we do, today.
There is no such thing. In fact, most anonymizing and/or VPN services flat out state in their TOS that they will respond accordingly to all legal requests for information.
Some VPNs claim there IS NO information if the authorities come calling
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions.
FTFY; You highlighted the wrong word. I have no interest in *renting* the media I pay for; I either own it, and can play it whenever, wherever I want, or their business model can DIAF. They are not taking my money and running when they decide the service isn't profitable enough.
I can *buy* books, games, music for pennies, just not from big media, and that's what I do, and a bigger chunk of it goes to the author / artist per purchase. Fuck big media. Fuck it until it dies.
As for "copyright infringement", and "file sharing", there's little point in people getting their panties in a twist. Technology evolves and so do industries. We already have services like MOG and NETFLIX, which replace what a lot of questionable activities used to provide, for a combined total of a whopping $13 USD/mo. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions.
I wish i could share your optimism, but i think that your prediction won't come true while current copyright law is in effect. You mention netflix, they are operating since 1999, still they are only available in america and their catalog contains only fraction of available material (they contain cca 100k titles according to wikipedia. There is cca 2280k movies listed just on IMDB, there are many more titles not listed there). Why should i think that this situation will change in near future?
If you are going to defend copyright infringement/piracy, it is much more convincing if you don't then say "but as soon as I have a nice cosy subscription model to use, I will start to pay it and condemn copyright infringement/piracy".
People who have a philosophical objection to the whole idea of copyright have a tenable position: those who merely find it easier not to pay, not really.
I personally don't believe that, living in a capitalist society as we do, you should expect all musicians, artists, f
A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
Silly pirates? (Score:2)
Why would people who pirate things not use an anonymizing proxy? Is there something about the bidirectional aspect of bittorrent protocol that stops this working?
I tried one for web browsing when they were discussing the establishment of the great firewall of Australia (which failed to eventuate), and while it did slow things down, it seemed to work fine. Websites that guessed at my location would be completely wrong.
Re:Silly pirates? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing. In fact, most anonymizing and/or VPN services flat out state in their TOS that they will respond accordingly to all legal requests for information.
Anyway, it's kind of a waste of breath for us as a community of geeks to bother engaging people (like the journalist writing that article) in conversation when they don't even care enough to put the hyperbole aside and use rational words to discuss the topic. Starting off any discussion with the loaded word "piracy" or "pirate" in the title or opening paragraph is silly and unprofessional. It'd be like someone writing an article about a guy investigating government corruption by calling him an "anti-government terrorist" and asking him "why do you hate 'Merica?!"
As for "copyright infringement", and "file sharing", there's little point in people getting their panties in a twist. Technology evolves and so do industries. We already have services like MOG and NETFLIX, which replace what a lot of questionable activities used to provide, for a combined total of a whopping $13 USD/mo. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions. When that finally happens, the idea of bothering with file sharing becomes silly unless you are really and truly destitute. For everyone else, it'd be absurd to waste precious time finding and downloading crap via these other methods when they could just pay $5 for an almost limitless library of music or $10 for an endless library of movies and television. The only possible exception will remain books, where there seems to be no equivalent and you'll be stuck paying the $30-$60 per book that we do, today.
Re:Silly pirates? (Score:4, Informative)
There is no such thing. In fact, most anonymizing and/or VPN services flat out state in their TOS that they will respond accordingly to all legal requests for information.
Some VPNs claim there IS NO information if the authorities come calling
http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/
Re: (Score:3)
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions.
FTFY; You highlighted the wrong word. I have no interest in *renting* the media I pay for; I either own it, and can play it whenever, wherever I want, or their business model can DIAF. They are not taking my money and running when they decide the service isn't profitable enough.
I can *buy* books, games, music for pennies, just not from big media, and that's what I do, and a bigger chunk of it goes to the author / artist per purchase. Fuck big media. Fuck it until it dies.
Re: (Score:1)
As for "copyright infringement", and "file sharing", there's little point in people getting their panties in a twist. Technology evolves and so do industries. We already have services like MOG and NETFLIX, which replace what a lot of questionable activities used to provide, for a combined total of a whopping $13 USD/mo. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the coming years, we should find more content available to more people in massive libraries like both of these services for *very affordable* subscriptions.
I wish i could share your optimism, but i think that your prediction won't come true while current copyright law is in effect. You mention netflix, they are operating since 1999, still they are only available in america and their catalog contains only fraction of available material (they contain cca 100k titles according to wikipedia. There is cca 2280k movies listed just on IMDB, there are many more titles not listed there). Why should i think that this situation will change in near future?
The problem is,
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of greedy authors accused them of theft. While the era of insanely long copyright lasts, there will be no comprehensive library of works
FTFY. Copyright would be no problem if it only lasted as long as a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how do I pay for my Netflix subscription in British pounds and watch Netflix using a British IP address without a US VPN?
Re: (Score:2)
People who have a philosophical objection to the whole idea of copyright have a tenable position: those who merely find it easier not to pay, not really.
I personally don't believe that, living in a capitalist society as we do, you should expect all musicians, artists, f