File sharing sites Openload and Streamango shut down by Anti-Piracy Alliance ACE

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Until companies stop treating their customer base like worthless numbers on a paper nothing will change.

Companies don't region lock because they want to, someone else in your country has the rights to the movies and shows therefore Netflix is not allowed to offer it in your country. The rights owner also does not actually have to be showing the content either, very common, so you cannot view it because the owner has not released it yet (or will ever) and there is nothing Neftlix, Amzon Prime or anyone else can do about it and are not actively screwing you. Having a single global unified catalog is what they want and is better and cheaper on them but just is not an option,

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Companies don't region lock because they want to, someone else in your country has the rights to the movies and shows therefore Netflix is not allowed to offer it in your country. The rights owner also does not actually have to be showing the content either, very common, so you cannot view it because the owner has not released it yet (or will ever) and there is nothing Neftlix, Amzon Prime or anyone else can do about it and are not actively screwing you. Having a single global unified catalog is what they want and is better and cheaper on them but just is not an option,

Oh yes they are. They region lock them so they can price gouge so they can make more money. Long gone the days when these locks had a reason exist IMO. They either admit defeat and give ppl what they want or keep wasting money on a loosing battle.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh yes they are. They region lock them so they can price gouge so they can make more money. Long gone the days when these locks had a reason exist IMO. They either admit defeat and give ppl what they want or keep wasting money on a loosing battle.

No they actually are due to rights owners of the content in your country. Might pay to actually look it up because it's very much a thing. Until their license expires there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it, even the copyright owner. If someone has a 10 year exclusive distribution license you can scream all you like nothing is going to change unless the license holder releases their contract or 10 years expires.

 

You can find articles of Netflix and others complaining about this very thing and it's also why in my country over the last few years the catalog in Netflix has gotten way better as licenses have been expiring and new non exclusive ones put in place so traditional TV and competing streaming services can offer the same content. 

 

Edit:

It is more costly for Neftlix to maintain region capabilities and manage all of what is required that surrounds that than an extra dollar or two from each customer in the region you are claiming is getting gouged.

 

I'm not just spouting my opinion either, these distribution license problems are very real. If you want it to change you need a law change in your country to resolve the problem. Hell I'd love something like that in my country too as my local TV stations own many exclusive licenses to content they have no intention of showing or showing again and unless someone pays them out they'll hold on to it for the full contract term because they have no reason to do anything otherwise. That is companies being jerks.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

scream all you like nothing is going to change

The only ones screaming here are the rightsholders.... Ppl just find and use the service that is more convenient. And currently only piracy has all the marks....

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The only ones screaming here are the rightsholders.... Ppl just find and use the service that is more convenient. And currently only piracy has all the marks....

You're looking at the wrong place, the rights holder is the TV stations in your country or who ever else has the distribution rights to the content not the copyright holder/creator. These are the reason for region locks.

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You're looking at the wrong place, the rights holder is the TV stations in your country or who ever else has the distribution rights to the content not the copyright holder/creator. These are the reason for region locks.

Its not just about the locks. The industry is screaming and crying about piracy for a very long time but they dont do anything to actually solve the issue('s) causing it.....

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Its not just about the locks. The industry is screaming and crying about piracy for a very long time but they dont do anything to actually solve the issue('s) causing it.....

Well yea but if you're going to pitchfork and torch a company at least burn down the one that is actually the problem 

[Arika]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

the rights holder is the TV stations in your country or who ever else has the distribution rights to the content not the copyright holder/creator.

I want to know what service is buying up all the distribution rights for anime in Australia, it's certainly not Crunchyroll, Netflix, Hulu, Funimation or any of the "big name" streaming services.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I want to know what service is buying up all the distribution rights for anime in Australia, it's certainly not Crunchyroll, Netflix, Hulu, Funimation or any of the "big name" streaming services.

Probably Madman Entertainment. Edit: Who has some kind of partnership with AnimeLab fyi.

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well yea but if you're going to pitchfork and torch a company at least burn down the one that is actually the problem 

Like i have time for that lol....  I just dont give them a dime and thats about it .

[Bramimond]

This sums up my feelings on the matter:

 

 

[Salv8 (sam)]

13 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

vrv Kappa

VRV was created by crunchryrole and owns it, plus it's only available to people in the U.S.

they've been cracking down on people who use VPN's by deleting the account of said user.

also you have to pay for it just to even see other seasons of their content, both for originals and anime

i want to watch harmon quest season 2 and onwards but

a. i have to pay to see it

and b. there aren't any torrents, i even looked on some private trackers that specialize in web shows such as harmon quest. (that i can't link due to OBVIOUS reasons)

whats makes this even worse is that most anime i can watch on there, i can watch for free with ads by NOT using VRV by using crunchryrole itself (bonus points with adblock, plays it anyways if the ad fails, good on android tv, i would perfer not to be interrupted with an ad while watching a generic anime protagonist getting his ass kicked)

 

wanna support them? buy the anime itself, or even better, the manga if you just wanna support the artist.

they still sell dvd's in japan, it's not hard to find a 1-3 year old anime for sale on amazon or the official site of said anime.

if all else fails and you can't buy it anymore, you have your best friend:

Spoiler

PirateBay.org

(not a real link, it's youtube)

 

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

This sums up my feelings on the matter:

 

Follow up video is also good, but way longer.

[Salv8 (sam)]

49 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Probably Madman Entertainment. Edit: Who has some kind of partnership with AnimeLab fyi.

yea its madmen, it's quite a popular alternate to crunchryrole because it also has dragon ball and other popular anime's as well (that food cooking competition one is on there as well i think)

AnimeLab is a Subsidiary of Madmen, it's their streaming service but they also put up other non madmen anime's as well, Samurai Girls was on there a long time ago (when the service was just starting out and was completely free (dubs and everything!!!!)) but is no longer there... 13 year old me liked it...f-for..f-for the titties...

[Trik'Stari]

38 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

This sums up my feelings on the matter:

-snip

 

I find it ironic that companies are going the same exact route that made people hate traditional TV. 

 

That being the bundling of content under exclusivity deals.

 

I just want to watch specific shows, I don't want to pay for shows I don't care about.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

that food cooking competition one is on there as well i think

Food Wars! Actually really like it, no not because of those scenes lol

[Salv8 (sam)]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Food Wars! Actually really like it, no not because of those scenes lol

Food Wars! just is the anime adaptation of Foodfight!

Change my Mind

[suicidalfranco]

Usenet...

[Crowbar]

Why does "ACE" even bother any more?

 

Working for this entity must be the most tireless, thankless and unfulfilling career in existence since after what's likely years of bureaucracy bullshit to have web sites hosted on international servers shut down, another just pops up a couple months later to fill it's spot.

 

Rinse, repeat...

 

Not to mention it's been proven in recent studies that those that pirate content wouldn't actually purchase it legally anyway or be able to afford to do so in most cases. All this "piracy isn't a victimless crime" nonsense is a farce.

[TetraSky]

Quite frankly, not a big loss. I don't know where their servers were located, but with the dreadful speeds and buffering every few seconds, streaming from Openload was never really an option to me.

 

54 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Usenet...

That still exist today? Never understood how that even worked. I've seen ads in the past for usenet saying crap like "this file you're looking for is available on ThisUsenetService, sign up now", but honestly, that felt like such a scam. And everything I could find about it was always a paid subscription. At that point I might as well just pay the legitimate copyright owners.

[CTR640]

Why keeps openload being blocked by Malwarebytes? False positive?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

It would be theft if pirating the content would mean that the copyright owner loses revenue or a physical item. 

I wouldn't say it's about the physical nature itself, although it's highly correlated with it. 

Anyway. debunking "copyright infringement (supply side) = theft" is beating a dead horse, while "free download (demand side) = theft" is flat-earth level argumentation. Ihoever didn't get it by now will probably never get it

 

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

If this line of thinking was really all that true then IP laws wouldn't exist because there is 'no lost sale' or physical item.

In fact, it's the opposite: IP laws exist precisely because what they target is not covered by theft laws. It's a different phenomenon that therefore gets a different treatment.

I do agree that talking about "lost sales" is misleading, since "lost sales" refer to a counterfactual, hypothetical sale, which is often used to calculate damages from copyright infringement, but that's not relevant for theft. I can steal something that was never meant to be sold by anyone.

 

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Companies don't region lock because they want to, someone else in your country has the rights to the movies and shows therefore Netflix is not allowed to offer it in your country.

Yes and no. So, you are essentially right in that even a company trying to do world-wide, internet-based, no-hassle content distribution would face a jungle of national-level regulation and copyright holders inherited from the physical media era, plus a bunch of dubious (dare I say lazy? ) newer rules aimed at replicating the physical media setting in the digital world. So, while technically possible, online platforms will find it extremely hard to be truly universal.

 

On the other hand, even in a world without such restrictions, these companies would now waste the opportunity to engage in price discrimination if they can, and would still try to somehow fragment the market (whether in terms of pricing, availability, or anything else) if that's the most profitable strategy. DVD and BR region locks are an example, as they are not necessary in any way to comply with any national law (in fact, they are not tied to any country, but broadly defined regions, i.e., areas that share market or logistic characteristics). It was essentially an attempt to re-create the fragmentation that occurred naturally in VHS days as different standards (NTSC, PAL) were adopted in different regions. (In fact, DVD and BR regions don't coincide, using the lock is a distributor choice, and in particular for BR many decided to just release unlocked discs and call it a day).

 

TL;DR:  Netflix can't do what it wants, but also wouldn't do what you want  

 

 

My thoughts on OP: I always found this kind of actions against file sharing services rather arbitrary, and cases like Megaupload opened the door for all sorts of abuse. There's nothing preventing all pirates from coordinating in using Google Drive for sharing copyrighted material - I'd love to see these CP associations trying to shut that down  In the end, the argument ends up revolving around "due diligence" in tackling copyright infringement using the platform, a large gray area open to interpretation. In the end, it's the most blatant sites (those providing streaming themselves, those advertising content availability rather than file hosting/sharing, etc - think of Cuevana and the like) that are going to take the fall. Kind of the same way Napster fell but P2P sharing, even of copyrighted content, continued.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

In fact, it's the opposite: IP laws exist precisely because what they target is not covered by theft laws. It's a different phenomenon that therefore gets a different treatment.

It wasn't covered by theft laws because those covered the physical world or currency, tangible assets. IP laws exist because they are non tangible and to encourage research, development and investment for a timed monopoly on the effort so you can be rewarded for that effort. Copyright is under that same umbrella, that is why the argument about lost sales and physical items don't work because it's irrelevant. The rights owner has exclusive rights to the thing they create for their benefit to profit from their creation. There's good arguments about those exclusivity being too long and also sub licenses issued by the rights holder for distribution being exclusive (linked Youtube videos earlier in topic).

 

So not really no I stand by my original comment, if harping on about lost sales and the physical realm was important at all then indeed IP laws would not exist because what those cover 'is not important', which is what my comment was saying.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It wasn't covered by theft laws because those covered the physical world or currency, tangible assets.

It's not covered because those laws are about theft and not copyright infringement, which is a different thing.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

IP laws exist because they are non tangible and to encourage research, development and investment for a timed monopoly on the effort so you can be rewarded for that effort.

Exactly. Although IP and copyright are not the same thing. Copyright is the monopoly over physical copies based on a given IP (hence the copy- part). IP goes beyond copyright and covers matters of authorship as well (such as plagiarism). In that sense, IP hasn't really changed due to the advent of digital goods that much, while copyright has in many cases become obsolete, and makeshift solutions have appeared trying to give a digital incarnation to copyright.

The use of the metaphoric speech "stealing an idea", unfortunately, has clouded the nature of both IP and copyright to some, leading to the misconception that somehow "theft" is involved in IP or copyright infringement.

Although in the case of industrial espionage, in some sense, it might be  

 

 

 

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not covered because those laws are about theft and not copyright infringement, which is a different thing.

That is only because people wish to use a single or narrow definition of the word theft in these discussions and ignore the full meaning of it. It's still theft, the law being broken is copyright law. Theft and criminal law covers many things which are intangible, like copyrighted work is, and in fact many laws do not use the terminology theft in them, it's all just a semantics game. Outside of a legal setting theft or steal fit just as well as anything else does.

 

Edit:

And it is in my view a mistake to take law specifics in to such a debate because then we will have to start saying fraud and larceny are not theft, or similar such matters which is not at all important.