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

[TechyBen]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Huh?  I think i know what you are trying to say but it does not make much sense.

The laws don't need to make sense.

If I throw some food in the street, it will get eaten by some rats. If I give/sell some food to a person, they may invite their family to eat a meal. If I give a plant to someone, it might grow in the garden.

 

I can make it illegal for someone to grow wheat, tomatoes, rice and potatoes. I'd be a grinch if I did!

 

So, I make a song/book/movie/etc and I release it. What control do I really have after I release it? What control should I be allowed to impose on others regarding it?

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

Crunchyroll has a month free trial and they offer most of their content for free if you watch ads. And you can get a USB DVD player and watch it on your computer.

Somehow... I watched everything on Crunchyroll... I just watched it (I question not, I saw 1 show I wanted to see but is not yet available anywhere else in my region, and am half way through another with 99 episodes... I'm hoping CR don't realise what's going on until I get to episode 99!!!).

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, NMS said:

1. I don't have a problem with paying more. I'm well aware of that fact that is very much a possibility. The reality of it is if I'm offering "you" the money but because of certain let's say logistical issues you are unable to deliver me the product/service then don't charge me in the first place. This is the issue that I have. So perhaps you see how I am now inclined to obtain what I need through other means.

 

2. And that is how in this instance Crunchyroll operates. They do not tell you beforehand with certainty whether the content will be available in certain region or not. The only way to know is to sign up. It's cheap anyway so I never demanded money back.

 

And considering that they know my location before the registration they can easily let me know if that particular product will be available to me. But that of course means less customers to them.

 

Bottom line is: Crunchyroll is garbage. There's almost no other way for me to get what I want. Seriously just take my damn money... So pirating it is.

 

It amazes me that to this day everyone is trying to tax and regulate the "internet" yet fails so hard provide proper distribution of information.

 

So crunchy roll promised you content that they couldn't show you? (or maybe its user error)  and because of that you think you are entitled to take content from someone else without paying for it?  This looks like a crunchyroll problem and not a content problem. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

The laws don't need to make sense.

If I throw some food in the street, it will get eaten by some rats. If I give/sell some food to a person, they may invite their family to eat a meal. If I give a plant to someone, it might grow in the garden.

 

I can make it illegal for someone to grow wheat, tomatoes, rice and potatoes. I'd be a grinch if I did!

 

So, I make a song/book/movie/etc and I release it. What control do I really have after I release it? What control should I be allowed to impose on others regarding it?

That still doesn't make sense.  Your analogies don't work.    There is a big difference between having control over something and having the rights to its distribution.  What exactly are you trying to argue?

[TechyBen]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

So crunchy roll promised you content that they couldn't show you? (or maybe its user error)  and because of that you think you are entitled to take content from someone else without paying for it?  This looks like a crunchyroll problem and not a content problem. 

 

 

That still doesn't make sense.  Your analogies don't work.    There is a big difference between having control over something and having the rights to its distribution.  What exactly are you trying to argue?

The law says I have the right to stop gravity from working.

 

The law says I have the right to enforce slavery on someone.

 

The law is not required to follow physical or moral rights.

 

The law states, copyright is a law.

 

You are correct, it's against the law to copy someones work without paying. Or watching it without paying. That its self speaks nothing about physically if it's possible to stop them, or if it's morally right to stop them (or visa versa, if it's morally right for them to watch it).

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

The law says I have the right to stop gravity from working.

 

The law says I have the right to enforce slavery on someone.

 

The law is not required to follow physical or moral rights.

 

The law states, copyright is a law.

 

You are correct, it's against the law to copy someones work without paying. Or watching it without paying. That its self speaks nothing about physically if it's possible to stop them, or if it's morally right to stop them (or visa versa, if it's morally right for them to watch it).

Are you seriously trying to argue that the ability to do something has more meaning than any moral, ethical or legal obligation?   Are you aware how civilization works?

[jagdtigger]

59 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So, I make a song/book/movie/etc and I release it. What control do I really have after I release it? What control should I be allowed to impose on others regarding it?

Yes this is the essence of the issue. Creators definitely deserve rights. But to go as far as restricting when, where, and how i can watch the stuff i paid for isnt justified in any way. Plus protecting stuff for freakin decades just to please studios?  Pffff.......

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Yes this is the essence of the issue. Creators definitely deserve rights. But to go as far as restricting when, where, and how i can watch the stuff i paid for isnt justified in any way. Plus protecting stuff for freakin decades just to please studios?  Pffff.......

 

The protecting stuff for decades is a hard one.  All content is created through physical work, to claim one cannot own that for as along as they live or pass that ownership down to family when they die is no different to saying you can't pass on a house you built.  Imagine being told you can buy a house, but you can only have the sole rights to use it how you want for 25 years, then after that you have let other people use it however they want.

[Thaldor]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that the ability to do something has more meaning than any moral, ethical or legal obligation?   Are you aware how civilization works?

Civilizations work as "take what you can, fuck the others". At least when you look at the corporations, their leaders and politicians. Enough money and tax evasion becomes "creative accounting", enough money and corruption becomes "lobbying", enough money and selling opium becomes "distributing (opioid) painkillers"...

 

Entertainment corporations have through the ages become very good at "lobbying" and not mentioned "just a shitty contract" (aka. slavery contracts, mostly used in music industry, like 5 albums and you get 10 000$/album without royalties, no matter how the albums sell). If you want examples: There was only two reasons why the copyright protection time was lobbyed to be extended from 25 years to 75 years after the original author has died; Mickey Mouse and Elvis would have gone to the public domain and so corporations would have lost their milking cows (they did argue that the children of the original authors are still living off from the 25 years ago died author and they need to get to keep their properties, but in reality it's just that rereleasing Elvises Christmas Songs somehow still sells enough or at least it would be bad if people could freely use Mickey Mouse without Disney dictating it).

Not to even talk about how idiotic laws there is that some try to lobby, like internet tax, rights to demand IP-address contacts and all of the data directly from the ISPs without court orders, 3 warning -system is out dated - they want direct connection termination and without court orders, VPNs should require approvals and reasons to be used in personal use and probably many more (I'm not sure are all of those being in public, they are just something I pulled from my memory). Oh yeah! And every single time there is some discussion about updating IP and CR laws, someone always burns their trousers because their great idea about changing origin author rights to be transferable is denied.

 

Other good examples how civilization works is really the politicians. When they talk about removing privacy from the people, it's always "if you are not doing something bad, you have nothing to hide" but when people want to make the law making process more transparent, remove the few shrouds politicians still have in their work to make the government more transparent in ways of lobbying lists and making it more demanding to get documents stamped "secret", it's attacking their privacy. Taking money to drive someone others agenda is called "corruption", except if it's election time then it's just called "supporting", also it's not "taking bribes" to go to all expenses paid by person/corporation vacation as long as it's marked "educational" or "introductional" trip.

 

Everyone takes what they can as long as it's even borderline legal or they don't get caught doing it. Playing the system is the real game, find the hole and abuse it to hell is the objective and profiting from it is the goal. When corporations aren't playing nice, why should I or you play nice towards them?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Civilizations work as "take what you can, fuck the others". At least when you look at the corporations, their leaders and politicians. Enough money and tax evasion becomes "creative accounting", enough money and corruption becomes "lobbying", enough money and selling opium becomes "distributing (opioid) painkillers"...

 

Entertainment corporations have through the ages become very good at "lobbying" and not mentioned "just a shitty contract" (aka. slavery contracts, mostly used in music industry, like 5 albums and you get 10 000$/album without royalties, no matter how the albums sell). If you want examples: There was only two reasons why the copyright protection time was lobbyed to be extended from 25 years to 75 years after the original author has died; Mickey Mouse and Elvis would have gone to the public domain and so corporations would have lost their milking cows (they did argue that the children of the original authors are still living off from the 25 years ago died author and they need to get to keep their properties, but in reality it's just that rereleasing Elvises Christmas Songs somehow still sells enough or at least it would be bad if people could freely use Mickey Mouse without Disney dictating it).

Not to even talk about how idiotic laws there is that some try to lobby, like internet tax, rights to demand IP-address contacts and all of the data directly from the ISPs without court orders, 3 warning -system is out dated - they want direct connection termination and without court orders, VPNs should require approvals and reasons to be used in personal use and probably many more (I'm not sure are all of those being in public, they are just something I pulled from my memory). Oh yeah! And every single time there is some discussion about updating IP and CR laws, someone always burns their trousers because their great idea about changing origin author rights to be transferable is denied.

 

Other good examples how civilization works is really the politicians. When they talk about removing privacy from the people, it's always "if you are not doing something bad, you have nothing to hide" but when people want to make the law making process more transparent, remove the few shrouds politicians still have in their work to make the government more transparent in ways of lobbying lists and making it more demanding to get documents stamped "secret", it's attacking their privacy. Taking money to drive someone others agenda is called "corruption", except if it's election time then it's just called "supporting", also it's not "taking bribes" to go to all expenses paid by person/corporation vacation as long as it's marked "educational" or "introductional" trip.

 

Everyone takes what they can as long as it's even borderline legal or they don't get caught doing it. Playing the system is the real game, find the hole and abuse it to hell is the objective and profiting from it is the goal. When corporations aren't playing nice, why should I or you play nice towards them?

 

You know,  if a lot of that was true, in its essence we wouldn't have laws as such designed to keep the peace, just rules applied by a dictatorial regime.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that the ability to do something has more meaning than any moral, ethical or legal obligation?   Are you aware how civilization works?

It might be immoral for gravity to kill people. It does every day. Are you suggesting I should change the laws of physics to match my morals? Are you aware how peoples personal opinions work?

 

Where does it say it's moral to decide how people think or experience forms of information or entertainment? IMO it is. But I know nothing I can use to prove I am right. Reading someones diary when they say not to? Scummy move. Should it be illegal? I cannot say. Reading a book you have not purchased? Well, how did you get hold of it? Is it public information? Is it shared and how? If someone shouts out your diary in the street, should I then have to pay you?

 

It gets complicated. You know what is less complicated? Me as a creator and a customer working with other creators and customers, and ignoring those who don't want to work with me.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The protecting stuff for decades is a hard one.  All content is created through physical work, to claim one cannot own that for as along as they live or pass that ownership down to family when they die is no different to saying you can't pass on a house you built.  Imagine being told you can buy a house, but you can only have the sole rights to use it how you want for 25 years, then after that you have let other people use it however they want.

My farts are physical work. Though I am not sure if I can patent them.

 

PS, leasehold exists on houses (IIRC most houses in Germany are 100 leases, and not ownership) and inheritance tax exists, and does make (a small subset) or people homeless!

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It might be immoral for gravity to kill people. It does every day. Are you suggesting I should change the laws of physics to match my morals? Are you aware how peoples personal opinions work?

Gravity is not an artificial construct.  Why would you even try to make a correlation?

 

13 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Where does it say it's moral to decide how people think or experience forms of information or entertainment?

 

What are you talking about now?  That has nothing to do with anything I said.

13 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

IMO it is. But I know nothing I can use to prove I am right. Reading someones diary when they say not to? Scummy move. Should it be illegal? I cannot say. Reading a book you have not purchased? Well, how did you get hold of it? Is it public information? Is it shared and how? If someone shouts out your diary in the street, should I then have to pay you?

 

You do realize that none of the content creators in this context have made their product open for public sharing right?  None of them have given you or anyone else permission to copy them.   It isn't even remotely akin to a diary.

 

 

13 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It gets complicated. You know what is less complicated? Me as a creator and a customer working with other creators and customers, and ignoring those who don't want to work with me.

You know what, your understanding of this does  not suddenly make it ok to ignore IP rights/law.   Just because you can do something doesn't mean you are allowed to and doesn't mean it has no effect. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

My farts are physical work. Though I am not sure if I can patent them.

Who cares?

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

PS, leasehold exists on houses (IIRC most houses in Germany are 100 leases, and not ownership) and inheritance tax exists, and does make (a small subset) or people homeless!

So do those people just lose all rights to live in their own house after 100 years? Can I just use your house anyway I want because you have had it for 100 years?  Please.  Citation people become homeless due to a tax.  

[TechyBen]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Gravity is not an artificial construct.  Why would you even try to make a correlation?

 

 

What are you talking about now?  That has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

You do realize that none of the content creators in this context have made their product open for public sharing right?  None of them have given you or anyone else permission to copy them.   It isn't even remotely akin to a diary.

 

 

You know what, your understanding of this does  not suddenly make it ok to ignore IP rights/law.   Just because you can do something doesn't mean you are allowed to and doesn't mean it has no effect. 

 

 

Who cares?

So do those people just lose all rights to live in their own house after 100 years? Can I just use your house anyway I want because you have had it for 100 years?  Please.  Citation people become homeless due to a tax.  

Information is not an artificial construct. So, it's lawful or unlawful entirely arbitrary. But, that does not change where that information will go. A book or movie, once released, will be in the public domain, even if it's illegal to be so.

 

Quote

You do realize that none of the content creators in this context have made their product open for public sharing right?

They made it public. They literally printed a book or dvd or released a stream. That it's illegal to "distribute/share" that release, is has no bearing on the reality of that release being already distributed. Morally it might be wrong to share it past the first sale, but physically it is, the information is "free".

 

Thus it comes down to the rights of the two people involved (or more if the dvd/etc is "stolen/shared" with even more people). If I give someone some food, and they share it out, I might make it illegal for them to to do so. Should I? Should I make it illegal for the first person buying food, to share it with a second person?

 

These kind of problems start to appear once you start to try and enforce IP rights globally. They are absolutely laws, that should be followed. But they may not be morally or physically reasonable. (For example, they may reach too far in protecting the creator, or too far in protecting the customer)

 

Quote

You know what, your understanding of this does  not suddenly make it ok to ignore IP rights/law.   Just because you can do something doesn't mean you are allowed to and doesn't mean it has no effect. 

I never said that. It's horrible that gravity kills people. And it should be illegal for gravity to kill people. It's also wrong to break laws. Does not mean it will happen if we pass such a law. I did not say people should break laws. But laws can also be wrongfully passed!

 

But you seem to argue as if it's a given/obvious/settled setting. All I'm saying is, it's not.

 

Quote

So do those people just lose all rights to live in their own house after 100 years? Can I just use your house anyway I want because you have had it for 100 years?  Please.  Citation people become homeless due to a tax.  

Gah, you're just as impossible as you make me out to be too. XD

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/may/25/inheritancetax.property (Children caring for parents in a home would theoretically have to sell it to pay the inheritance tax and could not continue living in it)

https://www.dlapiperrealworld.com/law/index.html?c=DE&t=sale-and-purchase (I'm not german though)

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

Information is not an artificial construct. So, it's lawful or unlawful entirely arbitrary. But, that does not change where that information will go. A book or movie, once released, will be in the public domain, even if it's illegal to be so.

Movies are, entertainment IP is.  Gravity is not.

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

They made it public. They literally printed a book or dvd or released a stream. That it's illegal to "distribute/share" that release, is has no bearing on the reality of that release being already distributed. Morally it might be wrong to share it past the first sale, but physically it is, the information is "free".

No they didn't, they are selling it to the public.   You need to understand the fundamental difference in what is happening.

 

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

Thus it comes down to the rights of the two people involved (or more if the dvd/etc is "stolen/shared" with even more people). If I give someone some food, and they share it out, I might make it illegal for them to to do so. Should I? Should I make it illegal for the first person buying food, to share it with a second person?

No it doesn't it only comes down the right of if the content owner. You as a consumer have no rights other than what is granted to you by the content owner.

 

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

These kind of problems start to appear once you start to try and enforce IP rights globally. They are absolutely laws, that should be followed. But they may not be morally or physically reasonable. (For example, they may reach too far in protecting the creator, or too far in protecting the customer)

 

So your whole argument rests on you demanding someone else give you access to their property on your terms? 

 

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

I never said that. It's horrible that gravity kills people. And it should be illegal for gravity to kill people. It's also wrong to break laws. Does not mean it will happen if we pass such a law. I did not say people should break laws. But laws can also be wrongfully passed!

I think you are trying to obfuscate the argument.  Although it would be easier to stick to the facts.

 

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

But you seem to argue as if it's a given/obvious/settled setting. All I'm saying is, it's not.

It is a settled thing, they own the rights to how it is distributed, not you. you don;t get to demand anything and taking it against their will is immoral. PERIOD.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

Information is not an artificial construct. So, it's lawful or unlawful entirely arbitrary. But, that does not change where that information will go. A book or movie, once released, will be in the public domain, even if it's illegal to be so.

 

They made it public. They literally printed a book or dvd or released a stream. That it's illegal to "distribute/share" that release, is has no bearing on the reality of that release being already distributed. Morally it might be wrong to share it past the first sale, but physically it is, the information is "free".

 

 

Ah yes, the "information wants to be free" argument that the pirates and GPL people hinge their arguments on.

 

Let's split the issues shall we:

 

1) Is it legally, morally, ethically, or financially right to steal, download or otherwise obtain other peoples content without paying for it? NO. Your inability to pay for something, does not make it right, ever.

 

2) Is it irresponsible for IP holders to not make the content available in the form and platforms that people use? Yes. We should have learned this with Napster, Kazaa, and the 50 some odd P2P apps that appeared in the vacuum of those services collapsing before true server-less P2P ability came out with the torrent system. 

 

Presently, if a film is not available on Apple, Google and Netflix. It will be pirated. People don't want to go into the theater, or do not have a theater anywhere nearby. It used to be to see a live stage production, you had to actually pay for tickets and go to the theater stage, but movies supplanted live theater as entertainment because it was easy to reproduce the films and much safer for the actors and audience. Live productions still exist, but now they're ultra-premium experiences. Films are not. Film can do nothing in the theater that you can't do at home. It can be argued that some peoples home theater setups are superior to the big screen because there's no people around to ruin the experience.

 

Would I feel justified stealing foreign films or tv shows? No. I buy them on BD when they're available, but that just doesn't happen very often, and sometimes I discover something out of print before I even had the chance to purchase it. At some point you realize you've done all you can to try and get it the proper way and just get it from whatever source has it, legit or not. 

 

Music is a completely different animal when it comes to IP management. People don't listen to a song once and then never want to listen again, there is a constant desire to listen to music repeatedly. Music can be purchased, DRM-free from itunes. However it's still impossible to get music from other countries on iTunes.  There's been tracks I've wanted to purchase from Russia, or Japan for a decade, and they're still not there. Buying those discs? Not an option (do you know how hard it is to buy a CD or DVD outside your country? Assuming you can find a store with online sales, they will typically not sell to foreigners. Amazon.co.jp will not sell anything to you even if you have a Amazon.com account, despite the fact that Amazon is the one doing the logistics.) Fortunately there are some online sites that cater to foreigners who will find the most popular stuff to sell, but good luck trying to find anything older than a year.

 

With Film and Music, "region" management is primarily a way to do price discrimination. Sure it might be to manage different laws applying so specific content can be censored for those markets, but ultimately you have to realize that you, as the IP owner, are just leaving money on the table by not allowing sales globally. If you make English content, and people in China and Russia are willing to pay for it without localizing it, that's on them. Will it be pirated? Absolutely. But if you remove the barriers, people will be more willing to just it from you than the pirates who profit off of making counterfeit versions.

 

With software, there's a different issue in play, non-localized software is simply impossible to use. Pirates don't care, they steal the software, modify it so that any DRM is stripped or bypassed, and then sell counterfeit copies on eBay and such. They aren't localizing it. If you, an English person wants to buy English software, there's often no barrier to do so. However (and Australia specifically has laws about parallel imports) many companies make Australians and Europeans pay more for the EXACT product. 

 

Steam did something very counter-productive in this case. They went from charging USD for everything to only being permitted to buy in your local country's currency (like the Apple store), Why? So you can be charged more for the same product. I have the means of paying in USD, so I want to pay in USD, why can't I pay in USD? Because they want to charge me 30% more to pay in CAD.

 

But wait! you say, doesn't paying in CAD mean you also pay GST? Americans don't pay GST. Not the point, They could charge me GST in USD just based on the billing address of the card.

 

No the reason they do this because the racket they have going on with the steam trading cards that can be traded for credit. I'd RATHER have lost the ability to trade those cards for credit.

 

So artificial trade barriers go up, and people start going back to pirating things because now they can't get that software on that platform.

 

It's annoying, there is no reason for it. Push the responsibility for purchasing illegal things on the buyer, and the producer. Not the market. If it's not illegal, then there is no reason to block it.

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

Ah yes, the "information wants to be free" argument that the pirates and GPL people hinge their arguments on.

 

Let's split the issues shall we:

 

1) Is it legally, morally, ethically, or financially right to steal, download or otherwise obtain other peoples content without paying for it? NO. Your inability to pay for something, does not make it right, ever.

 

2) Is it irresponsible for IP holders to not make the content available in the form and platforms that people use? Yes. We should have learned this with Napster, Kazaa, and the 50 some odd P2P apps that appeared in the vacuum of those services collapsing before true server-less P2P ability came out with the torrent system. 

 

Presently, if a film is not available on Apple, Google and Netflix. It will be pirated. People don't want to go into the theater, or do not have a theater anywhere nearby. It used to be to see a live stage production, you had to actually pay for tickets and go to the theater stage, but movies supplanted live theater as entertainment because it was easy to reproduce the films and much safer for the actors and audience. Live productions still exist, but now they're ultra-premium experiences. Films are not. Film can do nothing in the theater that you can't do at home. It can be argued that some peoples home theater setups are superior to the big screen because there's no people around to ruin the experience.

 

Would I feel justified stealing foreign films or tv shows? No. I buy them on BD when they're available, but that just doesn't happen very often, and sometimes I discover something out of print before I even had the chance to purchase it. At some point you realize you've done all you can to try and get it the proper way and just get it from whatever source has it, legit or not. 

 

Music is a completely different animal when it comes to IP management. People don't listen to a song once and then never want to listen again, there is a constant desire to listen to music repeatedly. Music can be purchased, DRM-free from itunes. However it's still impossible to get music from other countries on iTunes.  There's been tracks I've wanted to purchase from Russia, or Japan for a decade, and they're still not there. Buying those discs? Not an option (do you know how hard it is to buy a CD or DVD outside your country? Assuming you can find a store with online sales, they will typically not sell to foreigners. Amazon.co.jp will not sell anything to you even if you have a Amazon.com account, despite the fact that Amazon is the one doing the logistics.) Fortunately there are some online sites that cater to foreigners who will find the most popular stuff to sell, but good luck trying to find anything older than a year.

 

With Film and Music, "region" management is primarily a way to do price discrimination. Sure it might be to manage different laws applying so specific content can be censored for those markets, but ultimately you have to realize that you, as the IP owner, are just leaving money on the table by not allowing sales globally. If you make English content, and people in China and Russia are willing to pay for it without localizing it, that's on them. Will it be pirated? Absolutely. But if you remove the barriers, people will be more willing to just it from you than the pirates who profit off of making counterfeit versions.

 

With software, there's a different issue in play, non-localized software is simply impossible to use. Pirates don't care, they steal the software, modify it so that any DRM is stripped or bypassed, and then sell counterfeit copies on eBay and such. They aren't localizing it. If you, an English person wants to buy English software, there's often no barrier to do so. However (and Australia specifically has laws about parallel imports) many companies make Australians and Europeans pay more for the EXACT product. 

 

Steam did something very counter-productive in this case. They went from charging USD for everything to only being permitted to buy in your local country's currency (like the Apple store), Why? So you can be charged more for the same product. I have the means of paying in USD, so I want to pay in USD, why can't I pay in USD? Because they want to charge me 30% more to pay in CAD.

 

But wait! you say, doesn't paying in CAD mean you also pay GST? Americans don't pay GST. Not the point, They could charge me GST in USD just based on the billing address of the card.

 

No the reason they do this because the racket they have going on with the steam trading cards that can be traded for credit. I'd RATHER have lost the ability to trade those cards for credit.

 

So artificial trade barriers go up, and people start going back to pirating things because now they can't get that software on that platform.

 

It's annoying, there is no reason for it. Push the responsibility for purchasing illegal things on the buyer, and the producer. Not the market. If it's not illegal, then there is no reason to block it.

 

The only thing I would say to this is that it does actually cost more to do business in Australia, even if it is a digital only transaction, there is still taxes, consumer law costs, insurance, etc that have to be factored into the exchange.  Such do cause the cost to go up, especially if you have to employ Australian's (we have high wages here) for any of it.  

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

Ah yes, the "information wants to be free" argument that the pirates and GPL people hinge their arguments on.

 

Nope. I'm not arguing *for* piracy. If I throw money in the street, I can ask for it back. But I did throw it in the street. If I give money to an individual, they may spend it in a way I do not allow. But I did give it to them.

 

IP/copyright is a contractual, not moral, setting. After, breaking those contracts it is then a moral/legal thing. But the pre-defined rules, are not set in stone. A creator *can* give away for free (and some do) and *can* limit distribution (as most do). Thus it's not lawful/immoral to do either, there is choice! Breaking that contract, though, that is where the law and morals come into it.

Quote

1) Is it legally, morally, ethically, or financially right to steal, download or otherwise obtain other peoples content without paying for it? NO. Your inability to pay for something, does not make it right, ever.

Or are you saying Linux is illegal!  Or if I share with friends? By the way, have you or Moose ever watched a film or DVD with a friend? Is that even legal? Did *you* pay for that content?  Again, I'm not saying piracy is right, I'm saying, it's not quite as you suggest "copy/watching/sharing is illegal/immoral".

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Movies are, entertainment IP is.  Gravity is not.

No they didn't, they are selling it to the public.   You need to understand the fundamental difference in what is happening.

It was released, but under a contractual request. I understand perfectly.

Quote

No it doesn't it only comes down the right of if the content owner. You as a consumer have no rights other than what is granted to you by the content owner.

I own the content of your post. I invented it first, and I have a governmental proof of that, ok, thanks, please take it down or face $1000s in fines. Right? Is that fair? What about your avatar!!! Do you own it? Mine, is entirely self drawn minus the font which I have a liscence for.

 

You suggest piracy is wrong and you should only use content with permission from the content owner, yet your own avatar is "stolen"!!!

 

Or do we exist in a community with shared content and media? Where we share things (like you have your Avatar?!)??? If I for instance invent a cure to a deadly disease, it might be my rights to withhold it for 10 years, and never release/sell it, or charge billions for 1 tablet... don't make it a moral good or correct thing to do though, even if "lawful".

 

It's not right to use things someone requested you not to use. However, sharing a story, book, film, song, panting... why is that wrong? Why would the artist say not to? I repeat my comments in other threads, other artists and creators manage to give out content for free, or ignore piracy fine! I'm not saying piracy is good, but the best solution, is to ignore it, and focus on other things (such as passing off/counterfeiting/slander/etc, charge for services/performances/products instead of per copy media rights).

 

Quote

So your whole argument rests on you demanding someone else give you access to their property on your terms? 

Nope. That it's a contractual term, not a lawful one (and many countries see this, civil law vs criminal law), and thus a case by case basis. Some content creators *do* give it out freely, thus "piracys is wrong" is not a given, it's a case by case basis.

Quote

It is a settled thing, they own the rights to how it is distributed, not you. you don;t get to demand anything and taking it against their will is immoral. PERIOD.

Then so is your Avatar. You never asked permission for it. Yet are using it. Or will you give a reason why your specific use case is not immoral? PERIOD?

[Kisai]

25 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Nope. I'm not arguing *for* piracy. If I throw money in the street, I can ask for it back. But I did throw it in the street. If I give money to an individual, they may spend it in a way I do not allow. But I did give it to them.

 

IP/copyright is a contractual, not moral, setting. After, breaking those contracts it is then a moral/legal thing. But the pre-defined rules, are not set in stone. A creator *can* give away for free (and some do) and *can* limit distribution (as most do). Thus it's not lawful/immoral to do either, there is choice! Breaking that contract, though, that is where the law and morals come into it.

 

Or are you saying Linux is illegal!  Or if I share with friends? By the way, have you or Moose ever watched a film or DVD with a friend? Is that even legal? Did *you* pay for that content?  Again, I'm not saying piracy is right, I'm saying, it's not quite as you suggest "copy/watching/sharing is illegal/immoral".

 

It was released, but under a contractual request. I understand perfectly.

I own the content of your post. I invented it first, and I have a governmental proof of that, ok, thanks, please take it down or face $1000s in fines. Right? Is that fair? What about your avatar!!! Do you own it? Mine, is entirely self drawn minus the font which I have a liscence for.

 

Don't move the goal posts.

 

Item is listed for X$, you decide you don't want to pay X$, so you pay someone X-1$ to go steal it for you. Then you make 500 copies and sell it for X-2$ each. That's what piracy ultimately is. It's you, the pirate, going "I do not want to pay, and I do not feel guilty depriving you of as much potential revenue as possible." It doesn't matter if you paid nothing to get it, that is still a "lost sale" potential that you may otherwise would have paid given no other choice to pay less or nothing. 

 

Or you know, you could have gone without.

 

Likewise, go look at the FBI warning on your DVD's if you even own any.

 

This is displayed on all Blueray discs before the video plays. You can not skip it (unless you ripped the disc first.) This is not a contractual agreement, this law. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

 

Quote

506. Criminal offenses⁶

(a) Criminal Infringement.—

(1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence.—For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition.—In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation.—Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

 

 

[TechyBen]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Don't move the goal posts.

 

Item is listed for X$, you decide you don't want to pay X$, so you pay someone X-1$ to go steal it for you. Then you make 500 copies and sell it for X-2$ each. That's what piracy ultimately is. It's you, the pirate, going "I do not want to pay, and I do not feel guilty depriving you of as much potential revenue as possible." It doesn't matter if you paid nothing to get it, that is still a "lost sale" potential that you may otherwise would have paid given no other choice to pay less or nothing. 

 

Or you know, you could have gone without.

 

Likewise, go look at the FBI warning on your DVD's if you even own any.

 

 

This is displayed on all Blueray discs before the video plays. You can not skip it (unless you ripped the disc first.) This is not a contractual agreement, this law. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

 

 

 

Me? I'm doing this?

 

Person buys a DVD. Invites friends over to watch it. None of them friends paid for that. Is it piracy?

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Person buys a DVD. Invites friends over to watch it. None of them friends paid for that. Is it piracy?

No that is not, it's a situation covered in the details of the law in sections around public viewings or charging to view. Inviting friends over to watch is completely legal thing to do, there is however a limit to the number where by it is deemed a public viewing. A public viewing is also showing it at say a town hall with no restriction on entry, or exceeding that limit of people.

 

Edit:

Quote

A copyrighted movie cannot be publicly displayed without the consent of the copyright owner. However, if the movie is played privately, no violation occurs. The law defines public as a place that is open to anyone or has a substantial number of persons outside your normal social circle.

 

Quote

It is important to look at the size and composition of the audience in order to determine if the movie showing is private. If the group showing is invite only and involves family and friends, it is a private showing. If everyone in the neighborhood is allowed in, including people you don't know, a court would more likely consider it public.

 

[NMS]

21 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

Crunchyroll has a month free trial and they offer most of their content for free if you watch ads. And you can get a USB DVD player and watch it on your computer.

I'm sorry but a DVD player? What I buy I wish to own digitally on all my devices. I don't need physical goods when they can be delivered via internet and stored on my drive.

At this point you might as well recommend me a cassette and a player for it.

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

So crunchy roll promised you content that they couldn't show you? (or maybe its user error)  and because of that you think you are entitled to take content from someone else without paying for it?  This looks like a crunchyroll problem and not a content problem. 

I couldn't agree more hence why I blamed it. Though "promise" is not a word I would use.

 

It's just too soon in my opinion to have every show within one service (just look at the mess that is Netflix, Hulu, and 10 others). So I suppose I want too much when it comes to one service having every license for every show with no restrictions.

[spartaman64]

4 hours ago, NMS said:

I'm sorry but a DVD player? What I buy I wish to own digitally on all my devices. I don't need physical goods when they can be delivered via internet and stored on my drive.

At this point you might as well recommend me a cassette and a player for it.

I couldn't agree more hence why I blamed it. Though "promise" is not a word I would use.

 

It's just too soon in my opinion to have every show within one service (just look at the mess that is Netflix, Hulu, and 10 others). So I suppose I want too much when it comes to one service having every license for every show with no restrictions.

you can rip it onto your computer 

[NMS]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

you can rip it onto your computer 

Ok boomer.

[spartaman64]

Just now, NMS said:

Ok boomer.

? I'm 20 you are just making any excuse you can to justify not spending money and enjoying what the studios poured their passion and time into without giving them anything. 

[Thaldor]

5 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

you can rip it onto your computer 

And break the one IP law that actually causes a lot of troubles to the consumers.

 

IIRC at least in Finland and most of the EU and US it's a felony to circumvent or disable copyprotection measures, no matter if they are only a label that says "copyprotected" but it might still be a copyprotection measure and to rip a DVD to a computer must go through it.

In contrast downloading from illegal sources does create illegal copy but it's not illegal to download (uploading is illegal because that's sharing), even better if you watch a stream for illegal sources, it's still legal to do so, even more than downloading because everything you watch doesn't create a "permanent copy" to your use. Morally questionable, but it's legal.