True, but nothing NBA related is.
unless the owner has thrown it out there as public domain.
True, but nothing NBA related is.
Regardless of the dollar amount they claim to be lost in sales, I think the evidence is pretty clear that illegal downloading is extremely rampant.
I can see why they want it stopped.
I can't see why any non-pirates have an issue with them wanting it stopped.
I burned some World cup matches on DVD
Where do I turn myself in
User beware
If you kept them to yourself, you don't have much of a case to prosecute yourself.
I think you're misrepresenting the opposition. Identifying piracy as an issue and thinking of ways to combat it are different. I can acknowledge piracy is an issue without agreeing that SOPA is the best method to handle it.
If I bought a CD of Lady Gaga am I the owner of it?
Where's this "public opinion" that they have no right to gripe to Congress?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? I can actually quote myself in this forum stating I have no problem with enforcement of criminal copyright violations.
So you have no counter-argument to the fact that they always griped, including times when the griping was unnecessary and overblown.
shocker
Without question, the complete bills of SOPA and PIPA are the wrong ways of going about doing "it" (trying to limit piracy). However, not all of them is bad. The primary problem I've found is that only an accusation is enough to get a site to lose its advertising and/or be blocked/shut down. Sounds like the Internet Gestapo to me.
I spotted 31 copyright violations in the first page of this thread.
ElNono's public opinion is clear.
He states that if the government gets involved in enforcment, this would be like the war on drugs and that it should stay a civil matter.
Do you really need the link to your public opinion?
Do you also really need sources that agree with your opinion? You've already posted sources that agree with you in that thread, why do you need me to repost them?
Is your google not working, or are you really this lazy? or stupid?
I can quote you asking why the government should be footing the bill for enforcement:How did you arrive at that conclusion? I can actually quote myself in this forum stating I have no problem with enforcement of criminal copyright violations.
which is it?
I've never consented that their griping was ever unnecessary and overblown. Link to when their griping was unnecessary and overblown, please.So you have no counter-argument to the fact that they always griped, including times when the griping was unnecessary and overblown.
shocker
This is at least the 3rd time today you have posted something I either haven't said, asked for, or alluded to.
It's no longer shocking.
A lot of companies that oppose the bill are okay with another proposed bill that also attacks the piracy problem without the broad authority that PIPA/SOPA grant.
In a nuts , the problem is how far we go with enforcement, not that piracy is ok or justified.
Well I suppose this part is true.
Not really. You could say I voyeured it or something though.You stole it.
Where's this "public opinion" that they have no right to gripe to Congress?
Are you going to answer the question or keep on dodging, par the course?
My beef was government taking on civil litigation. Which was an erroneous take seeing that didn't make it into law. I admitted as much.
Why don't you link the whole thread, so everyone can draw their own conclusions? Here: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show....php?p=5063763
I have also stated in that thread I have no problem with criminal copyright enforcement...
Same thread.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=317
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=318
You didn't post about their right to gripe to Congress? You need a quote?
This is the 2nd time today you claim not saying something you did say.
can someone explain to me how the US has jurisdiction in new zealand
Apparently Lamar Smith, sponsor of the SOPA bill has been using someone else’s photos without proper accreditation which violates the licensed use of the photo (copyright violation).
Read below:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...om-2648232.php
I wonder if it would have been possible under SOPA or PIPA to have Lamar Smith's website shutdown and his finances (campaign?) frozen?
Yes it would have and without even letting the owner of the site know about it.
Megaupload Is Back in High Tech Whack-a-Mole
This undated image obtained by The Associated Press shows the homepage of the website Megaupload.com. (AP Photo)
Share
4 Comments
Text Size
- / +
By JASON RYAN (@JasonRyanABC)
Jan. 20, 2012
It's like a high tech game of whack-a-mole.
In less than 24 hours the file sharing site Megaupload.com is attempting to stay alive on the Internet despite indictments from the Justice Department and court orders to seize the site and computer servers hosting the service and assets.
The Justice Department unsealed an indictment Thursday charging Megaupload's founder Kim Dotcom, a.k.a. Kim Schmitz, and six of his associates with participating in a conspiracy that involved racketeering, money laundering and copyright infringement.
Megaupload is now on a server that has no domain name but has the address http://109.236.83.66. According to the website www.urlquery.net, the Megaupload's new server is based in the Netherlands.
Overnight supporters for the site hosted the remnants of Megaupload at www.Megavideo.bz indicating that content was being hosted in Belize.
Megaupload Reappears on Servers in Netherlands
The Justice Department, FBI and law enforcement agencies in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands sought court orders and seized servers which hosted Megaupload.com's content.
Justice Department and FBI officials declined to comment when asked about the site still having a prescence on the Internet.
DOJ Website Hacked After MegaUpload Shutdown Watch Video
Newt Gingrich Closing In; Shifting Cruise Ship Suspends Search Watch Video
TechBytes (01.20.12) Watch Video
When asked Thursday about the site possibly popping back up on the internet a Justice Department official involved in the case said, "Maintaining and running and assembling a site like this is very expensive. And obviously the seizure of financial assets is critical in this type of investigation and prosecution in preventing it from going forward."
The federal indictment alleges that Megaupload and a s company associated with the company caused an estimated half-billion dollars in copyright losses and made an estimated $175 million in proceeds.
The Justice Department is seeking to seize bank accounts associated with Megaupload and its associated enterprises in New Zealand, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, The Philippines and Germany and Citibank accounts in the United States.
Photos on the website techcrunch.com show authorities inn New Zealand seizing luxury cars at Dotcom's residence in New Zealand.
The indictment listed a Rolls Royce, Lamborghini and numerous electronic items, artwork and televisions that the Justice Department was seeking in forfeiture.
"Megaupload believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend itself," said Ira Rothken a defense attorney representing Megaupload.
Hours after the indictment was announced by the Justice Department and FBI, computer "hacktivists" with the group Anonymous orchestrated distributed denial of service attacks against the Justice Department and FBI's websites.
The group also targeted the websites Recording Industry Association of America, Universal Music and the Motion Picture Association of America in what they called OpMegaUpload. The group claimed it was their largest operation ever.
The case against Megaupload.com came a day after Internet companies and websites such as Google, WordPress and Wikipedia protested about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).
Justice Department officials said the case and arrest of Dotcom and other employees was not timed to the debate over the SOPA and PIPA legislation. Friday morning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) decided to pull the PIPA legislation from the Senate's Calendar but pledged to work on a more refined bill. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) also said he was scraping the proposed SOPA legislation,
Some members linked with Anonymous were planning today to target democratic members of Congress websites that were supporting the two bills in what they were calling OpDonkeyPunch.
Those links don't work.
Yeah, I could say you stole it.
I think I will.
You have given your opinion in public. So have many others in this and the other thread.
Public opinion does not equal public consensus, which is what I think you are looking for.
You need a dictionary.
ok, I see where you did the flip flop now.I have also stated in that thread I have no problem with criminal copyright enforcement...
Rofl a gripe from 1982?
Jack Valenti is DEAD. Is he now griping about ?
in a, that was an awesome gripe about the VCR though.
WTF are you talking about? Who would ever imply that they don't LEGALLY have a right to gripe to Congress? I certainly didn't, no matter how hard you try to make it look like I did.You didn't post about their right to gripe to Congress? You need a quote?
This is the 2nd time today you claim not saying something you did say.
Desperate troll with on his face is being stupid.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)