Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

 

[AAAll-Stars]

Yeah, I don't get

I suppose none of you made your girl a mix tape back in the day.

Until these thieving whore companies make some changes to their policies I'm not losing any sleep:

1- Purposely having horrid customer service so it's near impossible to get mistakes made on their part corrected.

2- Jacking rates up without notice nor explanation.

3- Remove copy write protection so I can back up and preserve the media I did rightfully purchase

4- Make it playable on all devices and not a limited number of times.

5- Force you to bundle services that you don't need.

6- Force you to pay for upgrades to their system

7- Lies about services they claim to provide.

8- Illegal internet throttling.

9- Not maintaining net centrality.

10- Monopolizing services.

I could go on and on. These are the same companies that spend millions of dollars annually on government relationships to fight and write the laws that keep them taking as much money out of pockets and into theirs as possible. They use piracy as a scapegoat for an industry that has a failing business model because they can't or won't adapt to the changes that technology has given us.

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Don't see why it matters if it's a basic necessity or not. It's either stealing copyright infringement or not. Don't get the consume right away either, I'm usually time-shifting the other way.

I find the "believe down in your heart", rationalizing mental gymnastics and cuss words interesting too. You guys are a lot more passionate about this than I am.

Because you clearly have found a space where mainstream illegal activity doesn't bother you and is ok. Hey, it's who you are.

 

[culdeus]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

 

[tonydead]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

This particular post? Not even close. The post where I asked the thieving whores to change? Yes. Same sex marriage, legalization of pot, basic human rights for everyone, you gotta fight for what you believe in brother. Change is what makes America great.

 

[tonydead]

Yeah, I don't get

I suppose none of you made your girl a mix tape back in the day.

Until these thieving whore companies make some changes to their policies I'm not losing any sleep:

1- Purposely having horrid customer service so it's near impossible to get mistakes made on their part corrected.

2- Jacking rates up without notice nor explanation.

3- Remove copy write protection so I can back up and preserve the media I did rightfully purchase

4- Make it playable on all devices and not a limited number of times.

5- Force you to bundle services that you don't need.

6- Force you to pay for upgrades to their system

7- Lies about services they claim to provide.

8- Illegal internet throttling.

9- Not maintaining net centrality.

10- Monopolizing services.

I could go on and on. These are the same companies that spend millions of dollars annually on government relationships to fight and write the laws that keep them taking as much money out of pockets and into theirs as possible. They use piracy as a scapegoat for an industry that has a failing business model because they can't or won't adapt to the changes that technology has given us.

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Don't see why it matters if it's a basic necessity or not. It's either stealing copyright infringement or not. Don't get the consume right away either, I'm usually time-shifting the other way.

I find the "believe down in your heart", rationalizing mental gymnastics and cuss words interesting too. You guys are a lot more passionate about this than I am.

Because you clearly have found a space where mainstream illegal activity doesn't bother you and is ok. Hey, it's who you are.

Sticks and stones.

 

[Chaka]

Shrinkage is part of the cost of doing business. It's been that way literally for the entirety of human existence. You don't like it, don't do business.

We would all love to live in AAA's fantasy land (maybe not actually, that place sounds pretty ####### boring) but the harsh reality is that place doesn't exist. If you want to do business you create a model that captures the most revenue, if the parameters change then change you business model accordingly. The RIAA, MPAA and all artists will move to capture the most revenue possible or they will fail and someone else who knows how to do it better will take their place.

Life, and business, goes on.

You don't facilitate an environment of illegal behavior. No one, and I mean no one, goes around and tells their employees that shrinkage is a part of business. I mean no one. It's crazy that you are even justifying it. Companies try and figure out news ways all the time to fight criminal theft. Good gravy. If someone told young girls that when you go to college that rape is part of the cost of getting an education, they would get lit the #### up. And for good reason. Criminal behavior should not be justified unless the laws are unjust. And for stealing premium video content, there is no justification.

I love how you call it shrinkage though. Nice rebranding. It's like Todd Arkin calling rape "Legitimate rape". It's still rape even if in your warped mind you think it won't hurt the woman if she just doesn't resist. Shrinkage is theft. You don't change your business model to make the criminals be happy. They just find new things to be criminals about. It doesn't stop. Instead you stand up to them and stop them.

I am not justifying anything, nor am I defending, condemning or taking an affirmative stance on this issue one way or the other. I am explaining a simple reality in life and business. If you own a business shrinkage occurs (and shrinkage is an industry term look it up). You don't need to advertise it to employees or consumers but as a business owner you better darn well be aware of it because if you aren't you won't be in business for very long.

And comparing shrinkage to rape is the lowest form of argumentation. Don't attempt to conflate shrinkage and rape it only serves to diminish any point you think you are trying to make and I won't justify your attempt with any further response.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

No. These illegal downloaders are an example of white collar crime. As in people in privileged positions, with the ability to not commit the crime, who do it anyways. The better ways already exist. And the movies that aren't out will come out after 90 days max.

The only innovation that happens through theft is new ways to go after the criminals. Or to take away their incentive. Illegal VHS sales never became a thing like this because they weren't copied easily because it took a lot of time and it cost a lot of money money to do it. But with P2P sharing being a click of the button, it's a totally different animal.

The only innovation now is people coming up with new laws and weapons to fight file sharing thieves. And we'll all pay the price for that.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

So you pay for ALL your PRON?!?!?

I try to be strong, but can't say that I don't cross this line re streaming. GB you if you can hew so strongly to your moral principles in this regard.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

The ideology is pretty scary when you think about it.

 

[tonydead]

I got caught up on Walking Dead and Better Get Saul last night. Tonight I'm going to watch Vikings.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

So you pay for ALL your PRON?!?!?

I try to be strong, but can't say that I don't cross this line re streaming. GB you if you can hew so strongly to your moral principles in this regard.

Wo Wo! I don't pay for porn. I just use top streaming sites that show ads. The ads suck, but it's a fair model and I don't want to mess with a good thing.

 

[cstu]

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Entitled, no, but I don't care if I'm breaking the law and being unethical when it pertains to this.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

This particular post? Not even close. The post where I asked the thieving whores to change? Yes. Same sex marriage, legalization of pot, basic human rights for everyone, you gotta fight for what you believe in brother. Change is what makes America great.

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Entitled, no, but I don't care if I'm breaking the law stealing and being unethical when it pertains to this.

Fixed for you.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Entitled, no, but I don't care if I'm breaking the law and being unethical when it pertains to this.

Why?

I'm asking because Broken Windows Theory clearly shows how dangerous criminals first start off with low level criminal behavior, the criminal thought process becomes normalized with them, and they start to commit more and more criminal acts.

You never know with these illegal downloading types. The fact that their justification keeps changing is all you need to know how they really think.

 

[matuski]

I am helping the industry when I download these movies.

 

[tonydead]

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Didn't say either of those two things. Putting words in peoples mouth ought to be reverse copyright infringement.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Didn't say either of those two things. Putting words in peoples mouth ought to be reverse copyright infringement.

I heard violence against gay people is what finally got them to get their #### together and start advocating for rights. These whacky illegal downloaders, the ends justify the means for...uh...er, themselves I guess.

 

[culdeus]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

 

[cstu]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

The ideology is pretty scary when you think about it.

To copyright holders it certainly is. However, there wouldn't be services like Spotify and Pandora without 'thieves'.

 

[Paulymaggs]

Can I have a PM on where to buy those 3D printers?

I wouldn't mind have a rolex.

When you get your 3D printer could you print me out a 3D printer? TIA

 

[AAAll-Stars]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.

Is that right?

The ideology is pretty scary when you think about it.

To copyright holders it certainly is. However, there wouldn't be services like Spotify and Pandora without 'thieves'.

It doesn't stop at that for you people. You take the mentality with you everywhere.

 

[culdeus]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

No, the labels are consenting. You seem to be ignoring this.

 

[shadyridr]

OK, so for recommending uTorrent, gents. Apparently, the latest update in the EULA "authorizes" your PC to mine for Bitcoin: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/latest-version-of-utorrent-installs-cryptocoin-mining-malware.454414698/

Sorry, couldn't find a non-forum webpage to link on this. But, beware.

ETA: A reddit thread with lots of good info on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2y4lar/popular_torrenting_software_%C2%B5torrent_has_included/

yep i used utorrent without issue for a long time. Recently updated and it ruined my pc. Popups everywhere. Had to delete a ton of stuff and still had issues with Firefox. Deleted that too and now all is good.

 

[Mr. Ected]

If not uTorrent, what app?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

No, the labels are consenting. You seem to be ignoring this.

Taylor Swift sells her music through a label, and her music isn't on Spotify. Her call...not the label's.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Didn't say either of those two things. Putting words in peoples mouth ought to be reverse copyright infringement.

So what point were you making linking gay marriage and weed legalization to using P2P technology to stream known copyrighted material.

Please enlighten me.

 

[culdeus]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

No, the labels are consenting. You seem to be ignoring this.

Taylor Swift sells her music through a label, and her music isn't on Spotify. Her call...not the label's.

You realize she's on an indy label right?

 

[comfortably numb]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.Is that right?

This particular post? Not even close. The post where I asked the thieving whores to change? Yes. Same sex marriage, legalization of pot, basic human rights for everyone, you gotta fight for what you believe in brother. Change is what makes America great.

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Rosa Parks broke a few laws in her day.

The bus she broke the law in now sits as a shrine in a museum.

One day, my laptop may sit in a museum.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yeah, I don't get

I suppose none of you made your girl a mix tape back in the day.

Until these thieving whore companies make some changes to their policies I'm not losing any sleep:

1- Purposely having horrid customer service so it's near impossible to get mistakes made on their part corrected.

2- Jacking rates up without notice nor explanation.

3- Remove copy write protection so I can back up and preserve the media I did rightfully purchase

4- Make it playable on all devices and not a limited number of times.

5- Force you to bundle services that you don't need.

6- Force you to pay for upgrades to their system

7- Lies about services they claim to provide.

8- Illegal internet throttling.

9- Not maintaining net centrality.

10- Monopolizing services.

I could go on and on. These are the same companies that spend millions of dollars annually on government relationships to fight and write the laws that keep them taking as much money out of pockets and into theirs as possible. They use piracy as a scapegoat for an industry that has a failing business model because they can't or won't adapt to the changes that technology has given us.

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Don't see why it matters if it's a basic necessity or not. It's either stealing copyright infringement or not. Don't get the consume right away either, I'm usually time-shifting the other way.

I find the "believe down in your heart", rationalizing mental gymnastics and cuss words interesting too. You guys are a lot more passionate about this than I am.

The point is, you dont have to consume this product.

There are a few people around these parts that are in the music or movie industries, so i can see people taking it a different way.

Just saying "i dont like how x Industry conducts their business, so i will just take their product" is completely silly, especially when there are completely legal and cheap ways to get that product.

That line of thinking is stealing no matter what product you are talikng about.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

No, the labels are consenting. You seem to be ignoring this.

Taylor Swift sells her music through a label, and her music isn't on Spotify. Her call...not the label's.

You realize she's on an indy label right?

What's your point? If nobody else on her label is on Spotify, I will stand corrected, but if there are other people on the label that stream through Spotify, isn't it the artist's choice?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sure, but here is the problem- it is ####### entertainment. This is not something you need to function, it is mot something you need to watch on day 1. I agree that the prices are horrible and i have stopped going to the theater as much (maybe twice a year with my son). However, there are perfectly legal ways to acquire this stuff in a couple months: buy it, VOD it, rent it, get it from the library, or many other ways. Evidently you feel you are entitled to it enough and need to consume it right away that you need to steal it.

Entitled, no, but I don't care if I'm breaking the law and being unethical when it pertains to this.

Just curious why this is different for you.

If you torrent a movie and you like it, do you buy it later, or just use that format? Do you not have Netflix/hulu/itunes?

I am no saint, i torrented music a bit, but have since stopped. I did torrent a movie this winter i wanted to see badly and wasn't in my area (Whiplash), but sadly ended up feeling guilty enough that i went online and bought a ticket for it.

Not rational, but I thought differently about movies since there are so many different ways to get them.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

In the 1980's the MPAA lobbied against the VCR out of fear of copyright infringement. Luckily for them they lost and made Billions on that new technology.

Every new innovation from the past century - motion pictures, player pianos, radios and television to name a few - sparked a new conflict between those in a better position under the old scheme and those who stand to benefit by updating copywriter law in light of new technology. Tens of millions of people use P2P file-sharing and upwards of 80% in some demographics are open to a better legal solution.

Translation- I will continue to break the law, because by breaking the law, like everyone else, the laws will eventually change.Is that right?

This particular post? Not even close. The post where I asked the thieving whores to change? Yes. Same sex marriage, legalization of pot, basic human rights for everyone, you gotta fight for what you believe in brother. Change is what makes America great.

Aren't you saying that I P2P and most that do would prefer it to be legal?Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Rosa Parks broke a few laws in her day.

The bus she broke the law in now sits as a shrine in a museum.

One day, my laptop may sit in a museum.

Ok your fishing is over the top. No one really believes that.

 

[culdeus]

They consented! Consent! The company/artist consents for YouTube and Pandora, but not for P2P. They make money off YouTube and Pandora but not P2P!

Let the artists/companies figure out what works best. But don't violate their rights because you can't entertain yourself or are too cheap to pay $7.99 a month for Netflix.

You don't find the entire practice of streaming music exploitative? I do. Either the value of the actual content is nearly 0 and they don't feel like passing on the revenue to the artists above their expenses to provide it or someone is robbing from the artists alot. Either way the artists are not getting paid here.

You propose streaming as a global panacea, I'm saying you can't just pay pennies to the artists so you can sleep at night and call it good. It's not that simple.

The artists are consenting. You have to remember that. And it's a new industry that takes time to normalize profit margins and costs.

No, the labels are consenting. You seem to be ignoring this.

Taylor Swift sells her music through a label, and her music isn't on Spotify. Her call...not the label's.

You realize she's on an indy label right?

What's your point? If nobody else on her label is on Spotify, I will stand corrected, but if there are other people on the label that stream through Spotify, isn't it the artist's choice?

She controls the label. Other artists don't have this sort of control.

 

[tonydead]

Just saying "i dont like how x Industry conducts their business, so i will just take their product" is completely silly, especially when there are completely legal and cheap ways to get that product.

I'm saying that it shouldn't be illegal and in a lot of scenarios with P2P it isn't illegal. And if that's my belief it should be perfectly fine to dislike the whores who spend millions of dollars each year lobbying government to keep it that way so they can line their pockets.

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Again, you guys keep putting words in my mouth. Gays and pot head were gay and stoned before the laws changed, btw.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Just saying "i dont like how x Industry conducts their business, so i will just take their product" is completely silly, especially when there are completely legal and cheap ways to get that product.

I'm saying that it shouldn't be illegal and in a lot of scenarios with P2P it isn't illegal. And if that's my belief it should be perfectly fine to dislike the whores who spend millions of dollars each year lobbying government to keep it that way so they can line their pockets.

Your comments about same sex marriage and legalization of pot make no sense. People have campaigned for the laws to change, and they have changed. Engaging in the illegal activity is not what changed the laws, advocacy did.

Again, you guys keep putting words in my mouth. Gays and pot head were gay and stoned before the laws changed, btw.

What a lot of people are saying is that of course it is reasonable to believe that and most of us hate the corporate big wigs just as much, but it is not a reasonable justification to take a product without paying. I hate the way Walmart operates, but i cant go in and take things.

 

[GoFishTN]

OK, so for recommending uTorrent, gents. Apparently, the latest update in the EULA "authorizes" your PC to mine for Bitcoin: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/latest-version-of-utorrent-installs-cryptocoin-mining-malware.454414698/

Sorry, couldn't find a non-forum webpage to link on this. But, beware.

ETA: A reddit thread with lots of good info on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2y4lar/popular_torrenting_software_%C2%B5torrent_has_included/

In reading a The Verge article, it mentions that the malware is a 'windows' program. Are those of us on Mac safe? Also if we are not into BitCoin, is this a non-issue?

TIA,

I'm on a Mac where I use uTorrent, so that would be great if this was Windows isolated (sorry Windows guys). I haven't upgraded my version of uTorrent in awhile, and I use it probably weekly or so, so you might be right. Hope so!

As for the Pro version, I'm not sure on that either. Might check into it over the weekend.

This was the sentence from the article that caught my eye...

...the latest update to the popular torrent management software comes bundled with a program called Epic Scale, a Windows program that uses the computer's processor to mine a bitcoin....

ETA: When I went to the 'Epic Scale' page, it says it is Windows only, OSX version to come soon. So good for us!!!

You can never trust utorrent again, no matter what OS you are using. On a Mac you should install Transmission.

 

[GoFishTN]

I gotta say, I kind of

If it's illegally on YouTube, you shouldn't watch it. But if an artist puts it there, F it. Go to town. I listen to artists music on YouTube all the time. They consented to this form of distribution and exhibition, I'm all in. If it's there illegally, I just be an adult and spend the $5 to watch it on Amazon or I go to Netflix.

So you verify the copyright holder of every youtube video you watch? How do you do that?

Frankly I'm rarely in the position to have to ask. The artists are always well know with verified channels, or I'm watching clips of Russian cars crashing that people put up. I'm not trying to watch Shawshank Redemption in 10 parts or some ####.

So you don't. Thanks.

Again, you're failing to see the difference between a streaming service and a for sale service. I don't download anything on YouTube and I don't purchase anything. It's streamed so the situation is specifically different. And content that violate YouTube's copyright guide are taken down. I have to reasonably assume that anything on YouTube is there fair and square. It's not reasonable for me to check if it's not. But considering YouTube's practices, it's reasonable to assume everything is fine.

So I can stream anything I want as long as I don't download? If Shawshank is on Youtube, its cool if I watch it?

Honestly dude, you only know deep down in your heart if what you're doing is crossing into an ethical grey/dark area or not. There are other websites on the internet that stream Shawshank. I've seen them. I know they're up illegally because even a small ounce of common sense let's you know this isn't a standard practice and these websites are profiting directly or indirectly from someone else's premium content. Now if I see Shawkshank on Youtube, what would I do? I'd click around, check the video page and I'll do a gut check and ask myself if this something that is ok to watch. This isn't hard here. Deep down, you usually know the ethical answer and it's almost never criminally viewing content that was not bought or streamed with the standard distributor's consent. Videos and channels these days are pretty clear when they have been streamed with consent or not. You know what the standard practice is and it's apparent with even a minimal check if the content has been distributed in violation of that standard practice.

Well I hope you do this for every video you watch otherwise you're being a hypocrite. Every funny cat video that gets uploaded is the property of the uploader. If you're not ensuring that you're watching the original video you're as morally corrupt as everyone else. You're cutting into the potential advertising revenue of the original uploader.

The way YouTube works is people upload stuff so others can freely view it. That is how the practice of YouTube works. So you have to reasonably assume that is what is going on when you watch it. You have to assume that everything is ok. Especially because YouTube routinely takes down copywritten content at the request of the company that is being violated.

If someone is sharing #### on a P2P service or a non YouTube website and it's a movie that is not for free anywhere else, it's almost always criminal and unethical behavior. Really, it takes five minutes to check.

Also to put your argument in context, essentially you're saying I'm a hypocrite if I assume the video is ok to be up and I watch it and found out later it's not. I'm a hypocrite...for assuming a video on a free streaming website that takes down copyright violating videos...is up is ok to be up. You're argument is I'm a hypocrite for making a mistake. That's awesome. You premeditating of criminal behavior is not even in the same hemisphere as me doing reasonable due diligence to make sure the video is ok but then finding out after that it wasn't. Not even close and it's kinda strange how you can't see the difference between an honest mistake and your premeditated criminal activity.

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

Those poor people being forced to make music instead of working like the rest of us. Oh the horror.

 

[culdeus]

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

Those poor people being forced to make music instead of working like the rest of us. Oh the horror.

I'm trying to point out to this guy that he thinks streaming is going to save us all from satan and he continues to use youtube and acts like he's just lining artists pockets with cash. He's not. Just because there's a one party consent doesn't mean it's the right approach.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

Those poor people being forced to make music instead of working like the rest of us. Oh the horror.

1. We are talking artists that are essentially in the top 40 of their craft. Yeah, that seems like a rip off if that is the case.

2. People who are talented enough should be encouraged to create art and be able to make a living out of it. If there is so little financial incentive to make music, we all suffer, IMO. I would rather somebody pursue the arts than a 9-5 desk job.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

If not uTorrent, what app?

http://www.qbittorrent.org/

 

[NewlyRetired]

If not uTorrent, what app?

http://www.qbittorrent.org/

I tossed utorrent today and downloaded Transmission. It worked great and was very simple to set up.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

so now we're supposed to try to verify what's copyrighted material and what's not on youtube before we watch it? ain't nobody got time for that. i'm not going to search around to verify what's ok to watch on youtube and what's not.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Getting viruses from illegal sites seems like the next step here and it's already begun. Once these pop-up sites lose people's trust the pressure will ramp up. Imagine if you got a cryptowall virus every time you went on a torrent site?

 

[Chaka]

I absolutely think youtube and torrents are equals in the eyes of copyright infringement. Like torrents it is just too difficult to enforce it all.

Even Pandora is a grey area in my mind. Each song listen get an artist like 0.0000000002 cents or something. I think I heard Pandora even to the biggest top 40 acts the pass thru on royalty check is on the order of like $100.00. A year. Is that right? Just because they are getting paid, it's basically slavery what they do on the streaming sites.

Those poor people being forced to make music instead of working like the rest of us. Oh the horror.

1. We are talking artists that are essentially in the top 40 of their craft. Yeah, that seems like a rip off if that is the case.

2. People who are talented enough should be encouraged to create art and be able to make a living out of it. If there is so little financial incentive to make music, we all suffer, IMO. I would rather somebody pursue the arts than a 9-5 desk job.

Engineers work desk jobs.

 

[AAAll-Stars]

so now we're supposed to try to verify what's copyrighted material and what's not on youtube before we watch it? ain't nobody got time for that. i'm not going to search around to verify what's ok to watch on youtube and what's not.

This isn't hiring an investigative team here. You take a quick look through and see if it seems legit. If a video has a link in it that tells you to click it so you can see the whole movie, then you know it's bull####.

Also, the examples of copywritten content being on YouTube illegally are extremely rare in today's day and age. It's reasonable to assume the content you're watching on YouTube is in the clear.