I know of a couple people who now pay a small fee for high speed bandwidth and a decent amount of storage specifically for an off shore bittorrent server. There are several of these service providers, but I can't remember the name of any off the top of my head (maybe somebody can point a couple out).
The bittorrent traffic is all on their server, and the user has file access to their account.
I don't think it was the car or the islands. I would assume that this specific version of 'Crocs' was named after a specific type of cold-blooded, leathery creature with a large mouth full of teeth.
Looks like I was a bit off, but here is what they posted:
Nothing is impossible. Nothing is out of reach. That's the lesson we take away from today, boys and girls (and men and women). Not long after we switched to Gazelle, and instituted the request bounty system, a request popped up for Microsoft COFEE - a forensic tool supplied by Microsoft to law enforcement offices around the world. You can Google it for more details, but the gist is that the tool was developed and distributed solely to law enforcement agencies. Sounds tempting, right?
And it was. So much so that user after user voted for the request, adding to the ever-increasing bounty. Everyone seemed to have a good laugh with it, figuring that no one would ever get their hands on it and actually upload it. That was the staff consensus, at least. Several imitators were uploaded and removed, users were warned, and the bounty remained.
Then, today, a user actually did it. They got a copy of COFEE and uploaded it here. The resourcefulness of our users never ceases to amaze us. Suddenly, we were forced to take a real look at the program, its source, and the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff. And when we did, we didn't like what came of it. So, a decision was made. The torrent was removed (and it is not to be uploaded here again.)
Just to be clear: we were not threatened by Microsoft or any law enforcement agency. We haven't been contacted, nor has our host. This was a decision made by the staff based on our own conversations and feelings about the security impact of having the software here. We know some of you, perhaps the majority of you, won't agree with it. To those that feel that way, we can only offer an apology and the explanation that we removed it for your security, and ours.
This is not an indication of any policy or rule changes going forward. This is a one-time decision, for a unique situation. This is not something we will do with other torrents or requests. At this point, the software can probably be found elsewhere, for anyone who wants it. We hope you all understand, and will continue searching out those rare items which attract huge request bounties. Feel free to discuss this here, but this decision is final. Thank you, all.
I'm not all that surprised what.cd pulled it and I doubt it has anything to do with pressure from any outside organization. what.cd is basically an invite only music specific torrent site. They have very strict rules on uploading, sharing ratio, file naming, the works.
Or how about we let economics and the free market work. The price of digital goods falls to $0. The files are in unencumbered standard formats that I can easily transfer to any device I want REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURE!
Now, here's the key... because I have complete control over my files, and manufactures aren't forced to incur the costs of implementing a content control scheme, and there is no need to connect to a central key system, and no extra fees to pay for the "privilege" of being in such a system. It actually works all the time.
I could see a complaint if '3G' was in small print at the bottom with a little '*', but I count '3G' prominently showing up in text and speech nine times. Verizon is being completely above board here (well, at least in this commercial).
Just because competing in business is hard, and our products have a marginal cost of $0, doesn't mean we should get a governmental exception from the free market. There are just as many working business models for software development that don't rely on selling non-rivilrous goods as there are for music, and I'd bet the same applies for books and any other product you can imagine.
Software will be free, just like music will be free (free as in cost that is). It will expand to all things with no marginal cost. It will happen. Much is already free. The only variables are how long it will take, and how much it will be fought against.
I've been meaning to get an arduino board. Start up a new hobby. Now I know where I'll be buying all my parts. Straight from SPARC... oh wait, I mean SparkFun... I think... damn, now I'm so confused.
This is actually much worse. You never have the content so there is no hope of recovering the video. At least with other failed services there was the possibility to crack the DRM and recover your purchased media.
Not only that, but you would have to have a consistent high speed connection in order to use your video. So much for watching on the train, or letting the kids watch that movie in the Van on the way to grandma's.
The problem is you seem to think that the piece of art is somehow 'owned' by the artists/rights holder. I'm sorry, but that 'ownership' is nothing more than a historical legal arrangement between society and artists (one that has been altered after the fact on several occasions to the detriment of society). It is not possible to actually own a song, or and idea, or a poem...
We as a society were concerned that if we did not provide an incentive (in the form of protected rights, which do not mean ownership) to creators that society would hindered by not having new created works. The purpose of these laws are to benefit society. However recent studies bring in the question any benefit of these protections (and fly in the face of the ridiculous scope of the current protections), especially given the massively lower barrier to entrance from modern technology.
It's OK that Universal falsely claimed copyright on a song, prevented the true copyright owner from exercising his rights, and then persisted to maintain it's wrong position because the title of the song was close to one that it has in it's back catalog.
Did I get that about right? And in addition to this it appears (although I haven't confirmed it myself) that Universal continues to illegally distribute, and profit from, the CD.
Of course this is all OK because big recording industry companies should have complete ownership of all music (and all uses of music) regardless of where it came from, and the rest of us should just shut the hell up and fork over the cash.
Your entire argument seems to be based on one simple concept. That companies go trolling through the patent database to come up with their ideas. That is provably false as nearly all companies specifically forbid engineers from looking at patents for fear of getting caught in a willful infringement case.
"If the process is signficantly delayed because of the lead times required to make the next best thing, then progress slows. 24 months to market for a new product means that every new product with be the best for 24 months, because nobody else knows what is good until it hits the market. So instead of a dozen innovations a year, you would get 1 innovation every couple of years."
... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh, you're serious... Wow that is demented reasoning. So everybody else just sits around and waits for one company to release a product, then the pick one to develop the next product, and so on, so that only one company is ever doing any work at one time. Riiiight, cause that's how the real world works. Sure.
I've been going over legal records for hours now, and no reference to a moron with a lot of time on his hands. A few morons in a hurry... A few hundred morons that get sent to DC... Nope, nothing about a moron with a lot of time on his hands. I'll get to work writing up a law to deal with this.
No I don't think it's right. I do feel for the individual radio stations, but this is what happens when NAB tries to use these same fees to kill off Internet radio.
So rather than allowing market forces to push prices to zero (yes zero price = marginal cost = 0) while removing ANY form of DRM, and having sane copyright laws, you'd rather have painful, confusing, cumbersome, technical intrusions on your computer that 'allow' things you wouldn't otherwise need.
And I'm sure he only hits you because he loves you.
I think I misunderstood you a bit there, and I think I know why.
You start off saying 'we wouldn't really need cooks', but then talk about all these people creating recipes but apparently their not cooks (that's the part I missed).
Yes the food replicator allows for much more creation. That creation is done by cooks, just like there are many more musicians today thanks to the cheap digital audio tools, and there are many more writers thanks to cheap publishing tools (blogs).
So I suppose we don't disagree that much after all, just a bit of terminology.
I can write a program that pumps out 'every possible permutation' (Which of course I assume you've never taken a discrete math course and don't understand the scale that means) of all cords, so I guess that's why we don't have musicians creating music any more... Oh, wait.
Seems to me the best way to deal with this would be to start mass accusing large sites with defamation. (not sure if this law only applies to 'bloggers' and not 'professional journalists').
As a developer who is looking at creating applications for Android phones, and possibly other devices, here is my opinion on the subject.
I personally plan to offer a free, and a paid version of my app, paid would probably a buck. In general yes I would like to charge for the software I create. All this is fine. The current market allows for such things. However I recognize this is artificial and will not last. My completed software has a zero marginal cost to produce. If I want to be successful as a developer I need to find ways to charge for those things that are scare, namely my time and expertise.
Selling software is not a good business model to bet your future on any more than selling digital copies of music. Even if they work out great now, they are artificial and temporary and if you are in business you need to recognize that and be able to make the transition when (or before) it comes.
You seem to think there is some magical difference between THE content and content. There isn't. The Broadway show is content, but it is also advertisement for the actors and director's abilities. The twitter adaptation is content, but it is also advertisement for the Broadway play and again the director's abilities. There is no special THE content, it's all just content. If it's good people will tune in, and then seek more.
RSS
Twitter
More than encryption (as Steven)
I know of a couple people who now pay a small fee for high speed bandwidth and a decent amount of storage specifically for an off shore bittorrent server. There are several of these service providers, but I can't remember the name of any off the top of my head (maybe somebody can point a couple out).
The bittorrent traffic is all on their server, and the user has file access to their account.
Re: Re: (as Steven)
I don't think it was the car or the islands. I would assume that this specific version of 'Crocs' was named after a specific type of cold-blooded, leathery creature with a large mouth full of teeth.
Re: What.cd (as Steven)
Looks like I was a bit off, but here is what they posted:
Nothing is impossible. Nothing is out of reach. That's the lesson we take away from today, boys and girls (and men and women). Not long after we switched to Gazelle, and instituted the request bounty system, a request popped up for Microsoft COFEE - a forensic tool supplied by Microsoft to law enforcement offices around the world. You can Google it for more details, but the gist is that the tool was developed and distributed solely to law enforcement agencies. Sounds tempting, right?
And it was. So much so that user after user voted for the request, adding to the ever-increasing bounty. Everyone seemed to have a good laugh with it, figuring that no one would ever get their hands on it and actually upload it. That was the staff consensus, at least. Several imitators were uploaded and removed, users were warned, and the bounty remained.
Then, today, a user actually did it. They got a copy of COFEE and uploaded it here. The resourcefulness of our users never ceases to amaze us. Suddenly, we were forced to take a real look at the program, its source, and the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff. And when we did, we didn't like what came of it. So, a decision was made. The torrent was removed (and it is not to be uploaded here again.)
Just to be clear: we were not threatened by Microsoft or any law enforcement agency. We haven't been contacted, nor has our host. This was a decision made by the staff based on our own conversations and feelings about the security impact of having the software here. We know some of you, perhaps the majority of you, won't agree with it. To those that feel that way, we can only offer an apology and the explanation that we removed it for your security, and ours.
This is not an indication of any policy or rule changes going forward. This is a one-time decision, for a unique situation. This is not something we will do with other torrents or requests. At this point, the software can probably be found elsewhere, for anyone who wants it. We hope you all understand, and will continue searching out those rare items which attract huge request bounties. Feel free to discuss this here, but this decision is final. Thank you, all.
/The What.CD Staff
What.cd (as Steven)
I'm not all that surprised what.cd pulled it and I doubt it has anything to do with pressure from any outside organization. what.cd is basically an invite only music specific torrent site. They have very strict rules on uploading, sharing ratio, file naming, the works.
Re: Re: Re: (as Steven)
Or how about we let economics and the free market work. The price of digital goods falls to $0. The files are in unencumbered standard formats that I can easily transfer to any device I want REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURE!
Now, here's the key... because I have complete control over my files, and manufactures aren't forced to incur the costs of implementing a content control scheme, and there is no need to connect to a central key system, and no extra fees to pay for the "privilege" of being in such a system. It actually works all the time.
Re: Re: People need a thicker skin... (as Steven)
I could see a complaint if '3G' was in small print at the bottom with a little '*', but I count '3G' prominently showing up in text and speech nine times. Verizon is being completely above board here (well, at least in this commercial).
Re: Music, music, music... (as Steven)
As a software developer here is my opinion:
Just because competing in business is hard, and our products have a marginal cost of $0, doesn't mean we should get a governmental exception from the free market. There are just as many working business models for software development that don't rely on selling non-rivilrous goods as there are for music, and I'd bet the same applies for books and any other product you can imagine.
Software will be free, just like music will be free (free as in cost that is). It will expand to all things with no marginal cost. It will happen. Much is already free. The only variables are how long it will take, and how much it will be fought against.
New customer (as Steven)
I've been meaning to get an arduino board. Start up a new hobby. Now I know where I'll be buying all my parts. Straight from SPARC... oh wait, I mean SparkFun... I think... damn, now I'm so confused.
Re: Re: I'm surprised... (as Steven)
This is actually much worse. You never have the content so there is no hope of recovering the video. At least with other failed services there was the possibility to crack the DRM and recover your purchased media.
Not only that, but you would have to have a consistent high speed connection in order to use your video. So much for watching on the train, or letting the kids watch that movie in the Van on the way to grandma's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC (please use the subject line, huh?) (as Steven)
The problem is you seem to think that the piece of art is somehow 'owned' by the artists/rights holder. I'm sorry, but that 'ownership' is nothing more than a historical legal arrangement between society and artists (one that has been altered after the fact on several occasions to the detriment of society). It is not possible to actually own a song, or and idea, or a poem...
We as a society were concerned that if we did not provide an incentive (in the form of protected rights, which do not mean ownership) to creators that society would hindered by not having new created works. The purpose of these laws are to benefit society. However recent studies bring in the question any benefit of these protections (and fly in the face of the ridiculous scope of the current protections), especially given the massively lower barrier to entrance from modern technology.
Re: Re: Re: (as Steven)
So your position is:
It's OK that Universal falsely claimed copyright on a song, prevented the true copyright owner from exercising his rights, and then persisted to maintain it's wrong position because the title of the song was close to one that it has in it's back catalog.
Did I get that about right? And in addition to this it appears (although I haven't confirmed it myself) that Universal continues to illegally distribute, and profit from, the CD.
Of course this is all OK because big recording industry companies should have complete ownership of all music (and all uses of music) regardless of where it came from, and the rest of us should just shut the hell up and fork over the cash.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Steven)
Your entire argument seems to be based on one simple concept. That companies go trolling through the patent database to come up with their ideas. That is provably false as nearly all companies specifically forbid engineers from looking at patents for fear of getting caught in a willful infringement case.
"If the process is signficantly delayed because of the lead times required to make the next best thing, then progress slows. 24 months to market for a new product means that every new product with be the best for 24 months, because nobody else knows what is good until it hits the market. So instead of a dozen innovations a year, you would get 1 innovation every couple of years."
... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh, you're serious... Wow that is demented reasoning. So everybody else just sits around and waits for one company to release a product, then the pick one to develop the next product, and so on, so that only one company is ever doing any work at one time. Riiiight, cause that's how the real world works. Sure.
Re: Wait, What? (as Steven)
"What's the precedent for that?"
I've been going over legal records for hours now, and no reference to a moron with a lot of time on his hands. A few morons in a hurry... A few hundred morons that get sent to DC... Nope, nothing about a moron with a lot of time on his hands. I'll get to work writing up a law to deal with this.
I don't feel for them at all. (as Steven)
No I don't think it's right. I do feel for the individual radio stations, but this is what happens when NAB tries to use these same fees to kill off Internet radio.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10052221-93.html
Re: Sign me up - first sale and right of repair (as Steven)
So rather than allowing market forces to push prices to zero (yes zero price = marginal cost = 0) while removing ANY form of DRM, and having sane copyright laws, you'd rather have painful, confusing, cumbersome, technical intrusions on your computer that 'allow' things you wouldn't otherwise need.
And I'm sure he only hits you because he loves you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You still don't get it (as Steven)
I think I misunderstood you a bit there, and I think I know why.
You start off saying 'we wouldn't really need cooks', but then talk about all these people creating recipes but apparently their not cooks (that's the part I missed).
Yes the food replicator allows for much more creation. That creation is done by cooks, just like there are many more musicians today thanks to the cheap digital audio tools, and there are many more writers thanks to cheap publishing tools (blogs).
So I suppose we don't disagree that much after all, just a bit of terminology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You still don't get it (as Steven)
I can write a program that pumps out 'every possible permutation' (Which of course I assume you've never taken a discrete math course and don't understand the scale that means) of all cords, so I guess that's why we don't have musicians creating music any more... Oh, wait.
Now do you see how silly that sounds.
Accuse? (as Steven)
Seems to me the best way to deal with this would be to start mass accusing large sites with defamation. (not sure if this law only applies to 'bloggers' and not 'professional journalists').
Re: Re: (as Steven)
As a developer who is looking at creating applications for Android phones, and possibly other devices, here is my opinion on the subject.
I personally plan to offer a free, and a paid version of my app, paid would probably a buck. In general yes I would like to charge for the software I create. All this is fine. The current market allows for such things. However I recognize this is artificial and will not last. My completed software has a zero marginal cost to produce. If I want to be successful as a developer I need to find ways to charge for those things that are scare, namely my time and expertise.
Selling software is not a good business model to bet your future on any more than selling digital copies of music. Even if they work out great now, they are artificial and temporary and if you are in business you need to recognize that and be able to make the transition when (or before) it comes.
Re: Re: (as Steven)
You seem to think there is some magical difference between THE content and content. There isn't. The Broadway show is content, but it is also advertisement for the actors and director's abilities. The twitter adaptation is content, but it is also advertisement for the Broadway play and again the director's abilities. There is no special THE content, it's all just content. If it's good people will tune in, and then seek more.