DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order...

DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 11:52:05 AM)
*DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order...* hmmm.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 12:03:08 PM)
good for them. And good to see limewire go.

mnottertail -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 12:12:13 PM)
Homeland Security's ability to shut down sites without a court order evidently comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a Clinton-era law that allows Web sites to be closed on the basis of a copyright complaint. Critics have long assailed the DMCA for being too broad, as complainants don't need to prove copyright infringement before a site can be taken down.

Moonhead -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 12:17:32 PM)
Is there anything copyright infringing on Limewire? I always got viruses or godawful freeware books claiming to be something they weren't.

hertz -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 1:33:59 PM)
I dunno about you guys, but before the state punishes people I quite like to see a fair trial of the accused and some evidence going to judgement. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned.

KenDckey -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 1:48:50 PM)
Without debating whether the sites should be closed, it is wrong to close them without permission. If I complained that DHS violated some copywrite law, would they close it

Termyn8or -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 7:48:16 PM)
FR Y'all knew I was coming dintya. The short of it is, from my limited understanding of file sharing, they really can't shut it down. It is not centralised. Each computer on say, gnutella has to donate a time slice. Peers, ultrapeers and all that, I don't know exactly what it all means specifically, but do I have to ? What it does mean is that it would be mighty hard for them to shut down filesharing on P2P, but then there are the sites that promote it and supply the software. How else would people get it ? If that's the case though then why didn't they shutdown oldversion.com where I just now downloaded Bearshare 5.2.5 again just for the hell of it ? And bearshare and limewires' websites seem to open up just fine. But then there is the long of it. How far does it go ? Are intellectual property rights that important ? Let's say that music is a frivolity, and totally useless. That doesn't matter if people are willing to pay for it. If it is a luxury then it is. But there is also intellectual property right in necessities. The question of quality must be mooted because I've heard some of the new shit. It can't be based on taste. What should the proper adjustment be ? On one side we could take all the profits out of music and actually entertainment altogether. The only things available would be lame by today's standards of course as fewer people are atracted to the field. It wouldn't be the end of the world but life would suck even more. But then the difference between the composer and performer ? Well one has property that is intellectual, the other has skill to make that which is intellectual, real. Actually the hierarchy of things is not that important except when it comes to money. Like an engineer with the ability to design a wonderful machine, but not the skills to mold, cut, weld or otherwise manipulate the steel, plastic or whatever it is made from. Who gets how much money ? Well in the entertainment industry there are people who decide just that, and guess who gets a good sized chunk of it ? But then the builder of a machine gets paid to build machines, not just because he built a machine. The designer of the machine can with a patent. Who wrote your favorite song, do you know ? OK, here many may, but people in general only know the name of the performer. Copies, which they call covers come out all the time. So the writers still get money ? Does that mean if I break tradition and go belly up the money to see an orchestra that Beetoven or Rachmaninoff gets a piece ? Or their heirs or something ? It may have been different back then, and it was different until not all that long ago. After X number of years, songs went into public domain. They were hot when they were hot and now they are not. Maybe it was fair, maybe it wasn't. If intellectual property is to be held in such high regard, the can of worms is enormous. Every auto manufacturer in the world would have to pay a cut to Henry Ford, maybe even Hitler ! The Marconi family would be getting a check for every antenna ever built. Baird would get a cut of those Limey TV licenses they have to get. Someone would have to ante up some for Farnsworth over here, or his heirs. It's said that the lathe is unique in the fact that it could reproduce itself. Does that mean the guy who invented it should get a little extra for each lathe ever built ? There was a big lawsuit when Sony came out with VCRs. Movie makers sued to prevent their sale because the machines could be used to violate copyright laws. How does that differ from the differences in the standpoints of music producers and cassette tape manufacturers, or any tape recorder type medium ? In fact the record companies tried the same thing when CDRs came out. A CDR can be used for music, but a music CDR has an embedded code that allows it to be used in stand alone CD recorders. A regular CDR wouldn't work. Who made that happen and why ? So if the pendulum swings in that direction, and we have to pay for every sound we hear, every picture we see, where does it go from there ? Will we have to watch out for any word combinations containing three or more words ? Will we be prohibited from quoting anything at all ? If so, how many words will it be where we draw the line. Three words, five perhaps ? It's Friday, enough for now. T ETA : Bearshare just connected and reports 11,000+ members signed on right now. T

Rule -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/26/2010 10:21:01 PM)
It is impossible to patent information. There are numerous examples of people independently coming up with the same information. The phrase 'reinventing the wheel' is common for that reason. Should the first person known to have done so - and none other - get special privileges? Most likely he or she was not the first person to have actually generated that information, but maybe the twenty-third; he or she just happened to be the first one to pass on that information. People have given me books for special occasions. They bought the book and passed it on to me: the carrier (i.e. the paper of the book) and the information content on that paper. In that case I did not pay the author nor the publisher, despite having this book and its information in my possession. Similarly, I may find a book lost on the street, sit down on a public bench and read the book and leave it behind for another person to find and read and leave it. In that case neither do I own the book nor have I paid the author nor the publisher anything. Ought I and all those other people who find, read and leave books behind them all be prosecuted for 'file-sharing'? Dentists and physicians commonly have magazines that often are years old lying about in a pile in their waiting rooms for their patients to read. Should every one of their clients be persecuted for this 'file-sharing'? Including those clients who cannot read? Yet all these books and magazines have already been paid for: when as physical objects first bought from the publisher or from a book store. That is what one pays for: for a physical object, not for the information carried by that physical object. The owner of such a physical object can sell it only once. Suppose that I sold person X my house and that I sold person Y the same house. Both X and Y would have me persecuted for fraud. But this is what those persecuting people for 'file-sharing' are actually doing: trying to sell people the same item over and over again. Worse: they are demanding to be paid without ever having made any agreement of sale with the prosecuted party. That is robbery any way one defines the concept: I have no agreement of sale with someone for the possession of my house and despite having no such contract I demand that this person pays me for my house. Even worser: the house - a physical object - does not exist. That is the most blatant of robberies: having someone pay for something that does not physically exist without having an agreement of sale. Incidentally, I have two truckloads of gold that do not exist. It seems to me that without any agreement of sale, I am nevertheless entitled to require of every human being on the planet that they pay me for these non-existing truckloads of gold. (Eh, did I say two truckloads? I now require to be paid for twenty non-existing truckloads of gold. As long as we do not have any agreement of sale nor a necessity of such, it stands to reason that I can increase the number of non-existing houses and truckloads that I am selling.) Does the information that I have on my external hard disks - which constitute my external memory - have any value? It either does or it does not. If it does, I must be a millionaire. (I do not feel like a millionaire, though.) If it does, I can make every person on this Earth to be a millionaire, simply by giving them a copy of all of that information. If it does, anyone persecuting me for having that information, must be willing to pay me those millions of dollars in gold for that information, if only to prove that their assertion that the information is worth that much is true. Guess what: I haven't had such an offer and as far as I know neither has anyone else been offered such millions of dollars in gold for a copy of the information on their hard disks. My conclusions: Physical objects have value and can be sold once only; Information has no value and cannot be sold.

hertz -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 2:05:15 AM)
This whole thing illustrates, to my mind, just how little the government 'gets' the information age. Every network they shut down will simply spawn another, and another. Maybe bit-torrent has had it's day - encrypted P2P will be the next big thing. Or maybe people will turn to file hosting sites (as I have). Totally anonymous, untraceable, unstoppable. Truth is, the business model enjoyed by the film and music industries is broken. Rather than wasting their income trying to stick plasters over the holes, they should really consider getting a new model - something that works.

pahunkboy -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 3:02:04 AM)
I did not sign up for DHS to handle freaking copyright! Get real! Copyright does not spill blood. Was their purpose not to stock the killing of innocent Americans? Talk about govt run amuck- and, the lack of a court order makes this even worse.

Arpig -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 5:31:14 AM)
I actually agree with Hunky on this one

willbeurdaddy -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 7:02:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I actually agree with Hunky on this one That PA doesnt see the connections (between Homeland security and file sharing services)is no surprise, but you?

pahunkboy -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 7:04:31 AM)
Well color the matter gestapo- stacii. draped in a red white and blue flag. gasp!

hertz -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 9:04:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I actually agree with Hunky on this one That PA doesnt see the connections (between Homeland security and file sharing services)is no surprise, but you? You have got to be fucking kidding!

popeye1250 -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 9:26:15 AM)
I don't like this at all! It reeks of censorship and, what the hell is "Homeland Security" doing being involved in something like this? And thanks again Bill Clinton, lowlife POS!

Termyn8or -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 10:14:23 AM)
FR Twenty new "items" last night. Gnutella doesn't look shut down from over here. I can't go along totally with Rule. I understand the concept but simply don't completely agree. The system is indeed broken, and the compensation doesn't seem quite right. When I paid twenty bucks for an album, how much of that did the artist(s) and author(s) actually get ? The mess is caused by too many people actually. Music is something to be enjoyed, a recreational thing, but play has turned to work. This is because there is a potential for someone to get rich. You don't think the moguls running the industry are working for minimum wage do you ? Tell me that a 25 cent piece of vinyl cost $20 because of distribution costs. They can't use that argument. With the possibilities today, anyone can be a rock star, the problem is getting paid for it. I have access to everything needed to propogate a piece of music. My buddy has the drums and a couple guitars, my neighbor has a bass. In the family we have a few more guitars, a violin, electric piano and a mixing board. Might have to get a couple more microphones. Feed that into my soundcard and record it, convert to MP3 and voila, I have essentially the product people want. I actually prefer the change of medium. No more scratched CDs, muddy sounding LPs because they've been played 100,000 times or tapes that are not quite as "magnetic" as they once were. It's not necessarily intellectual property rights that cause problems, it is the abuse thereof. Just looking for technical information can be a chore. Most of it is copyrighted and hidden or password protected. But that's not working well for them either. There are huge databases if you know where to look. For $85 per year I get just about everything I need, which would've costs tens of thousands if I had to buy it. T

Real0ne -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 10:42:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy good for them. And good to see limewire go. Have you considered getting appointed for the supreme court? We need people like you man!

Real0ne -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 10:47:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I did not sign up for DHS to handle freaking copyright! Get real! Copyright does not spill blood. Was their purpose not to stock the killing of innocent Americans? Talk about govt run amuck- and, the lack of a court order makes this even worse. if you worked for IBM would they be violating any law to shut you down when you are operating on their turf? Wouldnt they be immune from prosecution? No difference here... Its all in peoples faces and they cannot distinguish the difference between what a government is supposed to be and a corporate contract. People were foolish enough to give up their courts so we now have the fox gaurding the hen house and wonder why this happens?

Aylee -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 10:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Homeland Security's ability to shut down sites without a court order evidently comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a Clinton-era law that allows Web sites to be closed on the basis of a copyright complaint. Critics have long assailed the DMCA for being too broad, as complainants don't need to prove copyright infringement before a site can be taken down. Okay. . . but HOW did the Digital Millennium Copyright Act end up under Homeland Security?

Real0ne -> RE: DHS shuts down file sharing sites without court order... (11/27/2010 11:18:54 AM)
transfer of the judicial power! Hey in some states they have the dnr agents writing traffic tickets! I can go on and on with all the private agencies pretending to be government. none of these agencies are "government". they are all private corporations and associations under contract, or 3rd party interlopers as we say in law.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875