ISOHUNT in trouble?

[BWK]

Ohhh noooo....could it be, are we under the gun of filtering as well. Could it be that our rights to freedom are under the watchful eye of our government? Some of us say that it is illegal to share this type of information on the net. How does that differ from me or you taking our purchased copy of something and lending it out or just merely giving it away. Should we have charged that person and sent monies to the copyright holders? NOT! What if I were to start up a web site asking for a donation of $1 dollar to cover the cost of shipping and I were to make free copies of every movie and game or application that I "purchased or own" and then sent out to everyone that sent a donation? Would they then go after the POSTAL system for the distribution of this information?
It is also seeming that our jurisdictions are outreaching to other countries as well. as posted in this WIRED.com article Torrent Search Engines Unlawful, U.S. Judge Says | Threat Level | Wired.com
Have there been amendments made to our Constitution or our BILL of RIGHTS that have stated that the technological information highway or "internet" be regulated by government officials in a single country or yet be regulated by those whom seem to be wanting more money(aka movie and music industries)? How is it that all these countries can come up with what seems to be individual laws regulating this? To me this should be illegal due to the fact that the "internet" is world wide and everyone or almost everyone that accesses it is a paid subscriber.
If they want to regulate it and we all know they do... they why don't our money hungry governments and movie and music companies all sit down and make a new type of Internet Constitution or Internet Bill of Rights that is regulated by one entity with no fluctuation. Or better yet come out with their own internet that they in whole operate and maintain?

What are your opinions on this? And thank you WIRED.com for the article in which I read that sparked my interest.

 

[pparks1]

As far as I am concerned, Piracy is wrong. If I buy something and I give it away...then I can only give that 1 tangible thing away and I no longer have it. That's a key difference. However, if I buy a piece of software and then copy it and give it away to anybody on the net...then we all now have it and others didn't pay for it as required and aren't legally licensed. To me that is wrong.

 

[BWK]

As far as I am concerned, Piracy is wrong. If I buy something and I give it away...then I can only give that 1 tangible thing away and I no longer have it. That's a key difference. However, if I buy a piece of software and then copy it and give it away to anybody on the net...then we all now have it and others didn't pay for it as required and aren't legally licensed. To me that is wrong.

It is in no way shape or form illegal to make copies of your own purchased materials for backup. And it is in now way shape or form illegal to give anything away that you have purchased. And I see that the paid subscription to the internet via your provider is enough to be considered as paid for. Why do they not go after our providers? They already over charge for the services they provide. These services should in their prices include the right to distribute information freely.

 

[Jonathan_King]

As far as I am concerned, Piracy is wrong. If I buy something and I give it away...then I can only give that 1 tangible thing away and I no longer have it. That's a key difference. However, if I buy a piece of software and then copy it and give it away to anybody on the net...then we all now have it and others didn't pay for it as required and aren't legally licensed. To me that is wrong.

It is in no way shape or form illegal to make copies of your own purchased materials for backup. And it is in now way shape or form illegal to give anything away that you have purchased. And I see that the paid subscription to the internet via your provider is enough to be considered as paid for. Why do they not go after our providers? They already over charge for the services they provide. These services should in their prices include the right to distribute information freely.

But not to steal copyrighted materials. So it is technically legal to upload these programs, but it is facilitating piracy for others.

Read the EULAs of the programs, and you will see what I mean.

 

[BWK]

So.. then in reality,we never own anything we just rent it. Since an EULA is stating that I can not do as I please with my purchased materials. It has to be under the guide lines to which they have imposed on my purchased item. I think that would be a violation to my rights as an individual. There is freedom of speech...there is freedom of press....there are so many freedoms out there but noone is willing to remember why they were made, or what they are for. Us!

 

[pparks1]

It is in no way shape or form illegal to make copies of your own purchased materials for backup. And it is in now way shape or form illegal to give anything away that you have purchased.

Of course, the difference here is that with the software being distributed, you have a license that entitles you to use said software. You don't actually "own" the software, but rather have invested in a license to run that software. It's the license terms that you have no say over. You agreed to them when you purchased/installed the software.

They already over charge for the services they provide.

Residential broadband Internet is "dirt cheap" compared to rates paid by businesses for roughly the same thing.

These services should in their prices include the right to distribute information freely.

Again, the rules and regulations by your providers do not extend to software and other items which are bound by other licensing agreements. If you don't agree with the licensing terms of the products that you are using, don't use them.

 

[BWK]

Ok...since said person purchased said EULA. Would that in any way enter them into the investor category? Hence they did purchase a license to run the item. Understandably the license terms are drawn up prior to purchase.
I am in no way for or against piracy, I just do not understand how they can go after someone that is not in entity distributing anything. In essence it is to me kind of like purchasing items for a character in an online game. It's stupid to pay for something that you will never ever physically touch.
This is how I am perceiving this entire argument over internet rights and wrongs.

 

[Jonathan_King]

Stupid as anything may be, it is our duty as law-abiding citizens (by definition) to obey the laws. Grouse about them all you want, but the truth is it is wrong on an absolute scale to break our words. The EULAs specifically spell out the terms, and by using it, you are agreeing to obey them.

Break the laws if you want, but I doubt the courts will go easy on you.

 

[sambalayne]

assume you haven't read the rules?

 

[Jonathan_King]

assume you haven't read the rules?

Who?

 

[Lordbob75]

The thing with a website like that is that it in itself is not doing anything wrong, nor even facilitating anything wrong.

It is there to provide a service to host items that other use the site to look for, and download. Because he does not monitor each and every thing uploaded, he cannot screen them for illegal content. Nor is that his responsibility.

I agree that they should go after the source of the Pirates, not their hosts. They will just make new ones and hurt guys like him, who may have no interest in piracy.

The companies are too eager to squeeze every last dime out of us, particularly the music/movie corporations. I think that they need to chill out, and try lowering their prices a little. I bet they will find that they get more revenue for it.

~Lordbob

 

[Wishmaster]

I have somewhat the same view as many others here although some may disagree.

I think though, If i take a bluray movie I legally own, rip it to my Hard drive and recode for my Media Center library, I do not think this is (or should be) a issue. Seeing as I legally purched and own the original, it is in my possession and its personal use only.

However, by burning copies (even though its easily done) and giving them away for free (or selling), then its wrong.

 

[Lordbob75]

I have somewhat the same view as many others here although some may disagree.

I think though, If i take a bluray movie I legally own, rip it to my Hard drive and recode for my Media Center library, I do not think this is (or should be) a issue. Seeing as I legally purched and own the original, it is in my possession and its personal use only.

However, by burning copies (even though its easily done) and giving them away for free (or selling), then its wrong.

+1 exactly.

~Lordbob

 

[smarteyeball]

Legal tit for tat aside:

We are starting to witness the tangible evidence that it's the 'beginning of the end' for torrents as an easy distribution method.

The anti-piracy juggernaut is undeniably gaining momentum. Ultimately though, it's a massive waste of time and money as Piracy isn't going anywhere.

 

[Lebon14]

There's point where I agree some not.
For exemple, I am a eurobeat fan. If it weren't of piracy, I wouldn't have able to hear anything of this niche genre that only is widely known in Japan. Same thing for my favorite rock band B'z. And, now, today, when I can, I buy Eurobeat (importing physical CDs...) and buy my fav. band's CDs too and that's thanks to piracy.

Pros and cons of piracy :
Pros :
- Discover music/software
- Fully try before buying
- Evaluate quality/price ratio.
- Save money on things if quality or liking quantity/price isn't fair. (ex. like 1 song on an album of 15 tracks)
- Etc.

Cons :
- If you don't end up buying, you don't encourage the maker (and all those that are linked to the product)
- Disrespect of law
- Etc.

Canada and piracy... this is a love story (really!). Canada haven't made anything against piracy in the last decade. Well, they did stop people that were actually selling pirated copies but not particular people downloading and sharing some stuff. In fact, torrenting in Canada is legal... the content is not but rarely anyone get caught. That is because we are on a low rank in the piracy world compared to other countries.

Also, I have this mentality. As soon that what you download or upload is for personal use it's OK. Pirating OSes is NOT ok (you get more problems than anything else).

Also, it seems that music labels or software makers fails to adapt with the Internet. They KNOW that people is going to share it. So why aren't they trying to find a solution around it. And yet, there is a VERY simple solution : taxing Internet. Adding an additional 15% to your Internet bill that would be given to the major music and software maker would totally solve everything.

Let's make a quick calculation :
My Internet connection costs 64.90$/month.
Apply the taxes... 64.90*1.05 = 68.145 * 1.075 = 73.26$/m (yes, tax on tax here...)
Now apply the copyright tax : 73.26 * 1.15 = 84.24$/m
Difference between the prices... 84.24 - 73.26 = 10.98$ from me to the major music/software publisher.

Now, imagine that 1 million people has the same connection and pays the same price than me...
10.98$ * 1000000 = 10,980,000$/m That's 10 millions ninety eight thousand dollars!!
And on a year :
131,760,000$$!!! And now, span this over multiple countries... 'nuf said.

But one thing though ; the faster the connection the higher the tax is because habitually the speedier the connection is to someone's home the higher the probability that he actually download something illegally. Exemple : someone on 56k has less chance to be pirating (slow speed, can't phone, uses Internet rarely) than someone with 20Mbits down and 10mbits up connection.
56k : 1% tax.
up to 512kbits : 3%
up to 1Mbits : 5% (consumer); no tax (company)
up to 7Mbits : 10% (consumer); 0,5% (company)
up to 10Mbits : 15% (me) (consumer); 1% (company)
up to 50Mbits : 20% (consumer); 2% (company)
Faster than 50Mbits : 25% (consumer); 3% (company)

That would cure every copyright problems and keep Internet neutrality!
But, after all that, I still know that the best is to buy the product but imagine the person that wants an album and can't afford it... especially if there is only one song he/she likes.

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

IsoHunt has been in trouble several times, but has always seemed to elude being shut down. Whether that's because they're based in Canada or not is up for debate.

 

[Jonathan_King]

There's point where I agree some not.
For exemple, I am a eurobeat fan. If it weren't of piracy, I wouldn't have able to hear anything of this niche genre that only is widely known in Japan. Same thing for my favorite rock band B'z. And, now, today, when I can, I buy Eurobeat (importing physical CDs...) and buy my fav. band's CDs too and that's thanks to piracy.

Pros and cons of piracy :
Pros :
- Discover music/software
- Fully try before buying
- Evaluate quality/price ratio.
- Save money on things if quality or liking quantity/price isn't fair. (ex. like 1 song on an album of 15 tracks)
- Etc.

Cons :
- If you don't end up buying, you don't encourage the maker (and all those that are linked to the product)
- Disrespect of law
- Etc.

Canada and piracy... this is a love story (really!). Canada haven't made anything against piracy in the last decade. Well, they did stop people that were actually selling pirated copies but not particular people downloading and sharing some stuff. In fact, torrenting in Canada is legal... the content is not but rarely anyone get caught. That is because we are on a low rank in the piracy world compared to other countries.

Also, I have this mentality. As soon that what you download or upload is for personal use it's OK. Pirating OSes is NOT ok (you get more problems than anything else).

Also, it seems that music labels or software makers fails to adapt with the Internet. They KNOW that people is going to share it. So why aren't they trying to find a solution around it. And yet, there is a VERY simple solution : taxing Internet. Adding an additional 15% to your Internet bill that would be given to the major music and software maker would totally solve everything.

Let's make a quick calculation :
My Internet connection costs 64.90$/month.
Apply the taxes... 64.90*1.05 = 68.145 * 1.075 = 73.26$/m (yes, tax on tax here...)
Now apply the copyright tax : 73.26 * 1.15 = 84.24$/m
Difference between the prices... 84.24 - 73.26 = 10.98$ from me to the major music/software publisher.

Now, imagine that 1 million people has the same connection and pays the same price than me...
10.98$ * 1000000 = 10,980,000$/m That's 10 millions ninety eight thousand dollars!!
And on a year :
131,760,000$$!!! And now, span this over multiple countries... 'nuf said.

But one thing though ; the faster the connection the higher the tax is because habitually the speedier the connection is to someone's home the higher the probability that he actually download something illegally. Exemple : someone on 56k has less chance to be pirating (slow speed, can't phone, uses Internet rarely) than someone with 20Mbits down and 10mbits up connection.
56k : 1% tax.
up to 512kbits : 3%
up to 1Mbits : 5% (consumer); no tax (company)
up to 7Mbits : 10% (consumer); 0,5% (company)
up to 10Mbits : 15% (me) (consumer); 1% (company)
up to 50Mbits : 20% (consumer); 2% (company)
Faster than 50Mbits : 25% (consumer); 3% (company)

That would cure every copyright problems and keep Internet neutrality!
But, after all that, I still know that the best is to buy the product but imagine the person that wants an album and can't afford it... especially if there is only one song he/she likes.

This is all well and good, but does the end justify the means? No, even if the end result is good, the way you got there isn't. Regardless of how stupid and non-sensible these laws are, we need to obey them.

 

[pparks1]

The anti-piracy juggernaut is undeniably gaining momentum. Ultimately though, it's a massive waste of time and money as Piracy isn't going anywhere.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with the above. Years ago, almost all good software was commercial and had to be paid for. There was rampant piracy.

However, in the last 5 years, we have seen an explosion of free software and open source software which can freely be used which doesn't need to be paid for. And these are solid applications as well (antivirus apps, cd/dvd burning apps, virtualization apps, music ripping apps, office applications, graphics applications, partitioning tools, backup and image software, etc)

For me personally, piracy of software stopped when I didn't feel it necessary to have the commercial applications. So, now I use free software almost exclusively and when I feel that the free software doesn't cut it and I require the commercial app...then I am willing to pay for the commercial app.

With all that said, I would never consider pirating the operating system software. It's like going with an incredibly cheap motherboard on your computer. It's the central hub of everything that happens and taking risks and chances here are simply not worth the hassles which could result.

 

[Lordbob75]

However, in the last 5 years, we have seen an explosion of free software and open source software which can freely be used which doesn't need to be paid for. And these are solid applications as well (antivirus apps, cd/dvd burning apps, virtualization apps, music ripping apps, office applications, graphics applications, partitioning tools, backup and image software, etc)

For me personally, piracy of software stopped when I didn't feel it necessary to have the commercial applications. So, now I use free software almost exclusively and when I feel that the free software doesn't cut it and I require the commercial app...then I am willing to pay for the commercial app.

A great example would be Open Office. However, this is a good example two ways:
1) It does EXACTLY what MSOffice does.
2) Very few people actually know about it.

That is the main problem with open source/freeware. Most people just don't know about them. As long as MS Office comes bundled with new computers and is advertised, there will never be a large following for Linux/open source.
The other main problem (leading more towards Linux), is that most software development is done for Windows, because that is the most used OS...
You see where that is heading?

While I agree that freeware is almost always the best substitute, it will just not be as well known.
(Now, how can we change that?)

~Lordbob

 

[pparks1]

That is the main problem with open source/freeware. Most people just don't know about them.

I think the open source/freeware stuff is much more prevalent these days. Seems lots of people search for and gravitate towards free products to meet their needs. I've seen tons of recommendations for a variety of free/open source software on this forum alone.

The other main problem (leading more towards Linux), is that most software development is done for Windows, because that is the most used OS...
You see where that is heading?

I'm pretty comfortable using Linux as a desktop OS at home. In fact, I run from within Ubuntu almost exclusively from home on my laptop where I mainly surf the web and post to these forums. I think the Linux community has prospered very much over the past few years and I don't see development in this area slowing any time soon.

While I agree that freeware is almost always the best substitute, it will just not be as well known.
(Now, how can we change that?)

Stop pirating commercial applications like Photoshop and start using, supporting or donating to open source alternatives.