The Pirate Bay... Down for good? ='(

[twospirits]

members, just a reminder, keep it civil and legal. No going off the deep end and certainly no links to TPB or any other warez related site.

TS

 

[MonmouthDroid]

DRM is unjustifiable. Here is another example of it just hurting the honest consumer while it doesn't even slow down the pirates. They are still only hurting themselves.

Also the OS X vs Windows example is silly imo. Its a completly different situation, you have to write the program differently for the two different OSs. However there is no reason you have to use some annoying abstract file format for your video.

The main difference in the os x example is that the devices osx runs on are widely known. Yes mine says it wont work on all devices, but it gives no indication of which non iPod devices it works on, and the average customer would have no idea if it would work on their device until they try.

 

[mpw]

...until they try.

...or ask.

 

[jradicle11]

I know Peter Sunde, one of the founders of TPB, is currently working on a new project. It's called Flattr and it's a "micropayment platform." It's completely unrelated to piracy and can be found at Flattr

 

[MonmouthDroid]

The average consumer is not going to research a video purchase. And i think an AVERAGE customer is going to thunk "oh I have a reasonably new smart phone. This should work for me
" average consumers are going to think the stipulation on the box means it wont work on old phones. The $20 a movie costs is impulse range for most people.

 

[Zenze]

I disagree, I think that the ability to protect your rights is justification. If you disagree then you must be against a persons right to control the work they produce from unauthorised use, copying or viewing, is that the case?

No, I'm all for people protecting their work. DRM doesn't do this though. It tries but it doesn't. Its always cracked...

 

[mpw]

The average consumer is not going to research a video purchase...

Is the average consumer going to expect a Blu Ray disc to play on their phone? No, they're likely only going to be aware of the digital copy from the advert on the packaging, which states that you need to be using iTunes(and therefore an iP*) or a compatible product. To assume without reading, or asking for more information is just foolish.

 

[mpw]

No, I'm all for people protecting their work. DRM doesn't do this though. It tries but it doesn't. Its always cracked...

Yours is such a weak argument.

Use it against absolutely anything;
child protection laws don't work, because children still get harmed; therefore using your argument you'd do away with child protection laws.

people are still getting shot, let's do away with gun registration.

people still die in car wreaks, let's do away with crash testing.

people speed, let's do away with speed limits.

etc. etc.

 

[IOWA]

No, I'm all for people protecting their work. DRM doesn't do this though. It tries but it doesn't. Its always cracked...

Yours is such a weak argument.

Use it against absolutely anything;
child protection laws don't work, because children still get harmed; therefore using your argument you'd do away with child protection laws.

people are still getting shot, let's do away with gun registration.

people still die in car wreaks, let's do away with crash testing.

people speed, let's do away with speed limits.

etc. etc.

Your entire argument is invalid.

None of those laws/tests do the end consumer any harm. Now do they?

DRM, does. Your argument is thrown out. Please try again.

Talk about a "weak argument"

Quit trying to compare apples to oranges.


Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[mpw]

...None of those laws/tests do the end consumer any harm. Now do they?...

FFS IOWA you're wrong yet again!

Child protection laws: that prevent perfectly reasonable people working with children.

Gun registration: that stops perfectly reasonable people from owning firearms.

Crash testing: that adds unwanted weight and cost to new cars.

Speed limits: that stop people progressing safely at a reasonable speed.

 

[NYCHitman1]

This thread makes me giggle.

 

[MonmouthDroid]

Is the average consumer going to expect a Blu Ray disc to play on their phone? No, they're likely only going to be aware of the digital copy from the advert on the packaging, which states that you need to be using iTunes(and therefore an iP*) or a compatible product. To assume without reading, or asking for more information is just foolish.

No, but on the back it says iTunes AND windows media player, not just iTunes. I have always used windows media player exclusively. All other media I had played on my phone, so is it such a huge jump to think that another windows media player compatible video will work on my device?

 

[mpw]

No, but on the back it says iTunes AND windows media player, not just iTunes....

Without the copy of the product you have in front of me it's hard to argue, but the UK version I looked at said iTunes(for iP*) and WMP and specifically said that not all devices supported, I think PlaysForSure devices were mentioned, specifically not the the PSP.

I think that most people are aware that there are various limitations on compatibility, it's something even the average user would/should check before purchase.

 

[Rota]

MPW, your gun restriction arguments are moronic. Ever notice how the areas with the least restrictive gun laws have the least gun crime? The inverse is also true. Look at Chicago and New York. The criminals know that law abiding people can't protect themselves there so they prey on them with guns.

 

[IOWA]

...None of those laws/tests do the end consumer any harm. Now do they?...

FFS IOWA you're wrong yet again!

Child protection laws: that prevent perfectly reasonable people working with children.

Gun registration: that stops perfectly reasonable people from owning firearms.

Crash testing: that adds unwanted weight and cost to new cars.

Speed limits: that stop people progressing safely at a reasonable speed.

Wait what? Are you making this up as you go along?

I've never seen a child protection law stop a perfectly normal person from working with children. In fact, its a rather simple process. Background/drug testing. That's it.

Gun registration(not restriction): never stopped me or family members or friends from picking up guns of our choice. All it takes is a $20 ID that lasts 10 years, and a background check. Seems simple and straight forward to me.

Crash testing: what's wrong with crash testing? Unwanted cost? Really, so life saving devices like air bags and seat belts are really unwanted. Good thing your not in charge.

And speed limits: they are a good thing. What's a reasonable speed to you, sir? Whatever you deem fit? So people should be able to go down streets with homes and children at 90m.p.h? They also cut down on emissions on highways.(to those that obey anyway)

I am really glad your not a world leader. This must be the most foolish argument you've brought up in the entire thread.

Still invalidated. When I said try again, I didn't mean make a joke out of it and yourself =/

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[Zenze]

Iowa said it well. The only thing that I would add is that consumers view safety features as desirable features! They are advertised as selling points because they are desired by and benefit consumers. DRM... not so much.

 

[Deleted User]

Personal opinions aside, TPB is a ship that cannot be sunk.

 

[IOWA]

Personal opinions aside, TPB is a ship that cannot be sunk.

Oh it'll get sunk eventually... when the author/webmaster dies or retires lol...

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[Zenze]

Personal opinions aside, TPB is a ship that cannot be sunk.

Thats what they said about the Titanic...

Naa but seriously, it will eventually die... just probably not from outside pressure.

 

[mpw]

MPW, your gun restriction arguments are moronic...

My argument was not making any claim that gun restriction would decrease gun crime, purely that some gun registration laws prevent perfectly reasonable people getting hold of firearms.

But thanks for calling my argument (the one I didn't make, that you decided to counter anyway!) moronic

If there's any other arguments I haven't made please feel free to rant against those too!

 

[mpw]

...I've never seen...
...never stopped me or family...

Oh, so if if you haven't been effected there isn't a problem? IOWA, you may not be aware, but the universe doesn't revolve around you, and even if it did there's more to the world than the little bit you occupy

...Unwanted cost? Really, so life saving devices like air bags and seat belts are really unwanted...

I never said that IOWA, don't you agree people should have the freedom to choose though?

...What's a reasonable speed to you, sir? Whatever you deem fit? So people should be able to go down streets with homes and children at 90m.p.h?...

There are plenty of times when 100mph would be reasonable on a UK motorway, where the maximum speed is only 70mph.

But really, I don't think you've understood the point I was making; one of your arguments is that DRM doesn't always work, and therefore that is reason enough to do away with it, as those that can't be bothered to live by the rules of a reasonable society will not abide by the restrictions put in place. My argument is just to show a few examples where you, evidently, disagree the same principle should be used.

 

[tazziedevil]

I never said that IOWA, don't you agree people should have the freedom to choose though?

What exactly this has to do with TPB I dont know exactly, but no, when it comes to safety features or helmets on cars/trucks/motorcycles you should NOT have the right to choose, since NOT choosing to wear a helmet or a seatbelt or have airbags will almost invariably mean that you will need serious medical attention at some point, and we as taxpayers will have to at least partly subsidize your medical care.

 

[mpw]

 

[AirPirate]

So, DRM...oops, I meant MPW goes to his local Ford dealer and gets a killer deal on a brand new Focus. He pays cash. He loves him some Focus, and then lets his wife drive it to the store. Some NADA guy in the shadows takes a picture of his wife driving the Focus and MPW is slapped with a $700,000 lawsuit, because in the fine print, Ford stated that he could not let anyone else drive the car. MPW settles out of court and pays the $700,000, because he realizes that he should have read the fine print. He knows he doesn't "own" the Focus. He just owns the "right to drive" the Focus. See everyone? DRM is good for all of us.

 

[mpw]

So, DRM...oops, I meant MPW goes to his local Ford dealer and gets a killer deal on a brand new Focus. He pays cash. He loves him some Focus, and then lets his wife drive it to the store. Some NADA guy in the shadows takes a picture of his wife driving the Focus and MPW is slapped with a $700,000 lawsuit, because in the fine print, Ford stated that he could not let anyone else drive the car. MPW settles out of court and pays the $700,000, because he realizes that he should have read the fine print. He knows he doesn't "own" the Focus. He just owns the "right to drive" the Focus. See everyone? DRM is good for all of us.

LOL, You don't really understand analogies, do you?

The issue people have made against DRM in this thread does not relate to 'the small print' of a license, but to the difficulties in using the product they've bought that have been brought about by the technical implementation of DRM.

Let me help you re-write your analogy, so it makes less of a fool of the author. How about either;

mpw(it's lower-case, and I've dropped the really 'hilarious' faux mistake/veiled insult) goes to his local Ford dealer and gets a killer deal on a brand new Focus. He pays cash. He loves him some Focus, and then lets his wife drive it to the store. Some NADA guy in the shadows takes a picture of his wife driving the Focus and mpw is slapped with a $700,000 lawsuit, because in the fine print, Ford stated that he could not let anyone else drive the car. mpw settles out of court and pays the $700,000, because he realizes that he should have read the fine print. He knows he doesn't "own" the Focus. He just owns the "right to drive" the Focus. See everyone? contracts and reasonable agreements entered into knowingly by grown-ups(I've removed any reference to DRM, as this has absolutely no relevance to the story you're telling) are good for all of us.

or(and this version is more relevant to the argument about DRM);

mpw goes to his local Ford dealer and gets a killer deal on a brand new Focus, the deal comes with the caveat that only mpw can drive the vehicle, and to prevent unauthorised drivers the Focus comes with fingerprint recognition for the ignition. In full knowledge of the agreement he's making he pays cash. He loves him some Focus. Knowing it's wrong, and that he's agreed not to mpw decides he doesn't care about the agreement or the law, and figures that he probably won't get caught so as there's no harm to him, there's no harm(sod those that are harmed, they should be as cunning as mpw, look out for themselves and if that means lying, cheating and ripping people off that's just fine(unless they try and cheat mpw, then he'll go whining about the injustice to the lawyers he totally disregards when the shoe is on the other foot)) he consults the internet, where as luck would have it some geeks, likely alone in their mother's basements, has come up with a may to hack the Focus' fingerprint recognition system, and then lets his wife drive it to the store. Some NADA guy in full daylight takes a picture of his wife driving the Focus and mpw is slapped with a $700,000 lawsuit, because clearly in the agreement entered into, Ford stated that he could not let anyone else drive the car. mpw settles out of court and pays the $700,000, because he realizes that he shouldn't have acted like a dishonest, leaching twat. He knew he didn't "own" the Focus. He just had the "right to drive" the Focus. See everyone? DRM is good for all of us.