Author Topic: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv  (Read 202199 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« on: 17-04-2009, 16:38:28 »
Swedish court jails 4 linked to file-sharing site
Pirate Bay also ordered to pay $3.6-million in damages to entertainment companies


   

KARL RITTER

Associated Press

April 17, 2009 at 6:28 AM EDT

STOCKHOLM — Four men linked to popular file-sharing site Pirate Bay were convicted Friday of breaking Sweden's copyright law by helping millions of users freely download music, movies and computer games on the Internet.

In a landmark ruling, the Stockholm district court sentenced Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundstrom to one year each in prison.

They were also ordered to pay damages of 30 million kronor ($3.6-million U.S.) to a series of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI and Columbia Pictures.

Pirate Bay provides a forum for its estimated 22 million users to download content through so-called torrent files. The site has become the entertainment industry's enemy No. 1 after successful court actions against file-swapping sites such as Grokster and Kazaa.

Mr. Lundstrom helped finance the site while the three other defendants administered it.

Defence lawyers had argued the quartet should be acquitted because Pirate Bay doesn't host any copyright-protected material. Instead, it provides a forum for its users to download content through so-called torrent files. The technology allows users to transfer parts of a large file from several different users, increasing download speeds.

The court found the defendants guilty of helping users commit copyright violations "by providing a website with ... sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and through the tracker linked to the website.":?

Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.

John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, called the verdict "good news for everyone, in Sweden and internationally, who is making a living or a business from creative activity and who needs to know their rights will be protected by law."

The defendants said before the verdict that they would appeal if they were found guilty.

"Stay calm — Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file sharing whatsoever. This is just a theater for the media," Mr. Sunde said Friday in a posting on social networking site Twitter.

The court hearings, which ended March 3, renewed debate about file-sharing in Sweden, where many defend the right to swap songs and movies freely on the Internet. Critics say that Swedish authorities caved in to pressure from the U.S. when they launched the crackdown on Pirate Bay in 2006.

Pirate Bay's supporters mobilized for the trial, waving black skull-and-crossbones flags outside the court and setting up a website dedicated to the proceedings. The defendants sent updates from the court hearings through social network Twitter.

The verdict comes as Europe debates stricter rules to crack down on those who share content illegally on the Internet.

Last week French legislators rejected a plan to cut off the Internet connections of people who illegally download music and films, but the government plans to resurrect the bill for another vote this month.

Opponents said the legislation would represent a Big Brother intrusion on civil liberties, while the European Parliament last month adopted a nonbinding resolution that defines Internet access as an untouchable "fundamental freedom."

Sweden earlier this month introduced a new law that makes it easier to prosecute file-sharers because it requires Internet Service Providers to disclose the Internet Protocol-addresses of suspected violators to copyright owners.

Critics said the new law could harm Sweden's reputation as a spawning ground for Internet technology. The country of nine million has one of Europe's highest rates of Internet penetration, but has also gained a reputation as a hub for file-sharers.

Statistics from the Netnod Internet Exchange, an organization measuring Internet traffic in Sweden, suggested that daily online activity dropped more than 40 per cent after the law took effect on April 1.


Dakle, predivna kombinacija zastarelog poimanja kopirajta, materijalne i mentalno-logičke korupcije, s namerom, koja bi trebalo da povuče i krivičnu odgovornost. Nadam se da će žalba protiv još jednog korporadržavnog nasrtaja na ljudska prava dati rezultata.

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.088
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #1 on: 17-04-2009, 17:08:17 »
Oce im gasiti sajt, gre'ota bi bilo, otamo sam uvek skido sve najnovije ?

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #2 on: 17-04-2009, 17:16:13 »
Ne znam, ali ako ga skinu, Gugl i njegovi sajtovi su prvi do njega, strahujem za njih. Ovaj sramni čin takođe potire onu mantru every downloaded copy is a copy non sold, s obzirom na skandaloznu visinu kazne koja ni izbliza nije dovoljna da bi se to pokrilo. Sad se plašim da neko ne kidnapuje kriminalce koji su ovo sočinili i udavi ih u javnom čučavcu jer će tako povući u zatvor mnoge koji su doprineli da se stvori žitka tvar u koju su uronjeni ovi korporativni pregaoci. Da ne pominjemo odgovornost proizvođača automobila (gepeka  pogotovo), putogradnje (od nkv radne snage do direktora, proizvođača alata i mašina, svi pomagači u transportu), svih stvari koje su osnažile telo (i um - ne zaboravimo crimethink) gnevnog pravednika i dale mu dovoljno snage da ih pogura niz rupu. Proizvođač rupe je takođe upitan. A u najmanju ruku treba da najebe onaj dlakavi što je sišao sa drveta.
No, gospoda iz čučavca su ipak pokrenula proces koji je in turn pokrenuo proces zlomisli u glavi čučavitelja, tako da se može govoriti i o assisted suicidu, možda i o eutanaziji ako im je to bio fetiš.

raindelay

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 947
  • Disco Inferno
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #3 on: 17-04-2009, 21:00:38 »
Ma ne brinite, nista im se nece desiti. Svedjani su to vec pokusali pre par meseci sa "myp2pforum-om" i izgubili su parnicu.
Vise o slucaju i sprdacinom posle nje ovde:
http://www.myp2pforum.eu/website-forum/35088-myp2p-wins-court-case.html
 znaika
I WAS ANTI-OBAMA BEFORE IT WAS COOL

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 17.371
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #4 on: 17-04-2009, 22:42:08 »
Dok čekamo kraj sveta, evo jedan lep otprilike iranski sajt za skidanje svega i svačega, posebno programa: http://www.xtreme-load.com/vb/forum.php

A odavde sam skinuo već 400 Gb muzike i nastravljam dalje nesmanjenim tempom: http://www.zona-musical.com/
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.088
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #5 on: 17-04-2009, 22:50:51 »
Opet Boban sa prijateljskim narodima Irana i Pakistana, AWESOME  :!:

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 30.039
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #6 on: 18-04-2009, 00:50:12 »
Quote from: "cutter"
Ne znam, ali ako ga skinu, Gugl i njegovi sajtovi su prvi do njega, strahujem za njih.


izvinte što pitam, kakve veze ima gugl sa piraterijom?

misliš na BLOGOVE, poput onog od sonofmana, koji nude linkove za skidanje filmova, mjuza itsl?

ali, koliko ja to pratim, uglavnom se tu daju linkovi ka RAPIDŠERU itsl, dakle, kakve su šanse da neko zapreti RŠ-u da ne dopušta aploud 'pirackog' materijala?
dottore di sinistra scienzia, anti-papa-illuminatore di parallel-splatterpunk;
"балкански Тарантино за филмски рецензии"

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #7 on: 18-04-2009, 02:55:13 »
S jedne strane, ima veze podjednako kao i Piratski zaliv = omogućava pretragu i nalaženje korisnih informacija, ergo nikakve. S druge strane, ima mnogo opipljivije veze, čak na svojim serverima drži tone piratskog materijala, pa i cele filmove - YouTube. Naravno, nisam ozbiljno mislio da će neko da gasi Gugl već sam ga samo naveo kao primer onoga što gigantska korporacija može sebi da dozvoli (da ne ulazimo u saradnju sa opresivnim sistemima kakav je kineski preko cenzurisanja pretrage iz Kine, licemernu politiku Do no evil itd.) Blogovi su na meti boraca protiv slobode govora, bilo preko pretnji litigacijom (ili nečim efikasnijim, zavisno od toga koliko legalni sistem pogoduje eliminacionim ciljevima), bilo preko kopirajt začkoljica tipa "naveo si naše blagoglagoljive informacije, sad skini tog bloga". Rečju, razni napadi na poštenu upotrebu.

Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself. The Copyright Tips page and the Community Guidelines can help you determine whether your video infringes someone else's copyright piše kada aploudujete nešto, dakle lepe želje i pozdravi. U tome je problematičnost i nerazrađenost kopirajta na koji se ne mogu primenjivati isti aršini kao i u doba pre p2p i hosting servisa. Ne može se reći da autori i vlasnici nemaju pravo da traže zaštitu svog biznis modela, ali je u praksi dokazano da puka korisnička razmena materijala i informacija može samo da pomogne tim istim autorima (da ne ulazim opet u net biznis modele kakav je iTunes a kakvi se posebno teško implementiraju u Megatrend ekonomiji kakva je naša). Mislim da je korisnost YouTube i onlajn video servisa toliko očigledna da kada korporacija skine muziku sa nečije homebrew montaže npr. sportskih kadrova teško da iko sistem koji se pokušava nametnuti, a koji ili vodi u distopiju u kojoj vam se nameću zabrane za puko pisanje reči na određeni način, korišćenje boja - dakle opresija prema idejama koju ne mogu da ostvare u totalu te stoga na digitalni koncept svojine primenjuju zakone koje su doneli ljudi koji to namerno nisu imali u vidu. Naddržavni uticaj na tobože nezavisno sudstvo.

Takođe i vrištanje politkorektnih brigada za skidanje raznog crimethink sadržaja, saradnja sa Anti-defamacijskom ligom i sličnim udruženjima koja neguju slobodu duha.

YouTube i slični servisi, ma ko da stoji iza njih su svesni da se ne može sasvim kontrolisati šta milioni korisnika postavljaju na internet. Razlika je samo u tome koliko neki modeli to prihvataju kao ljudska prava a koliko kao privremenu mogućnost koja se mic po mic ukida.

Samo ovlaš bih pomenuo temu zaštite pri npr. instalaciji igre koja vas tera da instalirate programe za špijunažu, i raznorazne DRMove koji obogaljuju proizvod tako da krek deluje kao lek. Lako je reći da ne morate to da instalirate ako ne želite - poenta je da se broj prozora bez rešetaka takvom praksom sve više smanjuje i stvara svet u kome su takvi biznis i ideološki modeli sveprisutni.

Ovde me pre svega me brine to, da taj uticaj jednog dana (možda u vrlo bliskoj budućnosti) ne bude toliki da nevini ljudi redovno popiju robiju. Instant transfer celog društva u distopiju nije odmah ostvariv. Daleko od toga da ne treba pozivati na oprez i borbu jer, iako su korporacije naddržavne tvorevine, države u njima prepoznaju itekako korisne partnere u panoptikonskoj sferi (sulude presude uvek idu sa manje ili više skrivenim zahtevima o narušavanju privatnosti). Vidimo da je to uzelo maha i u najrazvijenijim društvima. Uz čuvenu "Ako nemate šta da krijete, nemate čega da se plašite" lažnu dihotomiju. Dakle, ili ste krivi ili niste, stoga razloga za strah nema, a druge opcije ne postoje.

Sa Rapidšerom je slučaj jasan - oni su hosting servis koji korisnicima garantuje i besplatan i plaćeni upload, kao i privatnost.
http://www.rapidownload.net/official-rapidshare-news/rapidshare-will-not-control-uploads/

Dakle, nešto što se pod krinkom gore navedene borbe protiv piraterije pokušava ukinuti. Ako vaš provajder blokira sajt ili vam ograničava download/upload koji ste platili i na koji imate pravo, prisili (ili još gore - ne prisili) davaoca usluga da otkrije vaše podatke, to sigurno nije ni za vaše, ni za bilo čije dobro sem onih koji svoju moć proširuju zakulisnim radnjama, monopolom i sličnim finesama. Citirao bih Dr. Kinga i njegovo pismo iz, gle čuda, zatvora:

Quote
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."


Internet i njegove mogućnosti su se se za sada pokazale nemogućim za totalno kontrolisanje, bitnim delom zato što većina ograničavanja zadire u ljudska prava kroz namerno iskrivljenu logiku i zakone. Stoga, živela piraterija!

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.088
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #8 on: 18-04-2009, 08:16:57 »
Alal vera za tekst, cutter objasnio. Ne mogu da zamislim situaciju u kojoj ne bi mogo da skidam dzaba filmove, sta bi gledo onda ? Narod se naviko, to je isto ko ono za pechenje rakije u principu, to moz da ture u zakon al' nema shanse to i na delu da bude.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #9 on: 18-04-2009, 08:49:32 »
Ja sam sinoć celo veče bio depresivan zbog ovoga. Mislim, da, ostaje nam demonoid i biće milijardu drugih torent sajtova koje ćemo koristiti (mislim, kad su ubili Napster, prešlo se na Audiogalaxy, kad su ubili Audiogalaxy, dispergovalo se na DC++ i Soulseek, kad su ubili Supernovu, išlo se na Mininovu itd.), ali ovakav pravni presedan je ružan, neprijatan i otvoreno favorizuje korporacije u odnosu na 'obične' ljude, to jest na individue.

3,6 miliona dolara prinudne naplate je besmislica, odrezana da se ljudima nanese materijalna šteta, ne da se nadoknade gubici, jer, vidi vraga, gubitke je NEMOGUĆE dokazati. U većini pravnih sistema, tuženik mora da dokaže da je pretrpeo gubitak da bi tražio nadoknadu, no, ovo nam pokazuje da se uz dovoljno političke i ekonomske snage može i bez dokaza gubitka ostvariti pravo na naknadu. Naravno, ovaj papir prilično plastično pokazuje da je filmska industrija USA u stalnoj ekspanziji, pa je time dokazivanje gubitaka još teže, ali eto... Podsetio bih i da je u pitanju dokument koji je proizvela MPAA a ne neka levičarska, liberalna, pirate-friendly pinkokomifeget organizacija.

TPB ekipa se junači, vele da je ovo tek prvostepena presuda koja ništa ne znači i da će kroz žalbu sada nastaviti suđenje itd., znači nećemo još izgubiti sajt, pretpostavljam, ali, zastrašujuće je kako se starinski copyright modeli dosledno slepo i bez osećaja prenose u digitalnu i Internet sferu...

Samo bih još da pojasnim ovo što Ghoul pita:

Rapidshare hostuje fajlove, da. Rapidshare ih takođe uklanja čim ga copyright owner obavesti da se radi o kršenju kopirajta. Google je taj koji tebe i mene obaveštava gde se traženi fajl može skinuti sa rapidsharea. Ovde je problem što se i u slučaju torenta takođe o torent sajtu može govoriti samo kao o mestu na kome dobijaš informaciju gde stoji traženi materijal. Torent protokol ti pomaže da skidaš materijal od drugog 'korisnika', ne sa weba. Analogija je dovoljno uredna, da su je čak i advokati TPB koristili na suđenju, ako kucanjem  reči 'watchmen' i 'rapidshare' u googleu možeš da dođeš do linka za piratski Watchmen onda je prilično jasno gde bi sledeći put korporacije mogle da nanišane, odnosno, pošto ne mogu da zatvore google, kakve bi mere bezbednosti zahtevale od država da nametnu ISP-jevima...

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.088
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #10 on: 18-04-2009, 10:37:57 »
Quote from: "Meho Krljic"
pošto ne mogu da zatvore google, kakve bi mere bezbednosti zahtevale od država da nametnu ISP-jevima...

E ovo mene zanima, dakle kako to otprilike funkcionishe, jel' to isto ono sto su uradili u Kini ili ?

shrike

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 720
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #11 on: 18-04-2009, 11:24:06 »
ne znam kako će se ovo odraziti na trackere zatvorenog tipa.
demonoid je gašen, pa je promenio zemlju, sad je u Kanadi čini mi se.
OINK, najveći muzički tracker je ugašen u Holandiji i Velikoj Britaniji ali je alternativa pronađena u What.cd koji se takođe nalazi u Kanadi. na kraju Rusija preostaje kao krajnje rešenje u slučaju da moraju da ugase server.
svojevremeno je Rapidshare razmišljao da server preseli na napuštenu naftnu platformu u Severnom moru ali ne znam da li to trajnije rešava stvar.
"This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against me!"

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #12 on: 18-04-2009, 11:36:39 »
Pa, to je standardna priča, od blokade i rapidnog uklanjanja nepodobnih sajtova do blokade spoljašnjeg sveta pod izgovorom da se tako štitimo od domaćih izdajnika/kriminalaca/narušavanja borbene gotovosti/špijunaže, dakle ukidanjem privatnosti i što većim kontrolisanjem ko koristi kakve informacije. Sulude klauzule u ugovorima o korišćenju, cenzura koja se podrazumeva. Zavisi od zemlje, kao što vidimo u Švedskoj je bilo potrebno malo pogurati sudstvo, dok su u nekim zemljama (tipa Kina sa svojim Zlatnim štitom aka Great Firewall of China, raznorazne diktature koje zabranjuju satelitske antene, televiziju, čučavce itd) korporacije brže našle zajednički jezik. U tom slučaju lokalni običaji se poštuju a saradnja unapređuje. Mogu i pokazati lokalnoj vlasti lepote kontrole koju do tada zabranjeni hardsoft omogućava kada se podesi na pravi način a sebi otvoriti još jedno tržište. Tradicija u novom ruhu.

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #13 on: 20-04-2009, 05:00:15 »
Videćemo koliki ovo može biti boost: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10567532
Quote

9:53AM Monday Apr 20, 2009
Pat Pilcher
Peter Sunde, one of the founders and spokesperson for bitorrent tracker site, The Pirate Bay, is said to have found out that they had lost their court case in Sweden several hours before the official verdict was delivered thanks to information supposedly leaked by what is claimed to be a "trustworthy source".

The Swedish Courts are unimpressed and brought in the police to investigate. Regardless of the final outcome after the dust has cleared from any remaining legal wrangles, The Pirate Bay verdict appears to be achieving the opposite to the outcome intended by the copyright advocates with support for the site and its political offshoot, the Pirate Party reportedly going from strength to strength.

Since the verdict, support for the Swedish Pirate Party has surpassed that of the Swedish Green Party and it now appears that almost half of all Swedish males under the age of 30 are considering voting for the Pirate Party in the 2009 European Parliament elections. In the first 24 hours since the verdict, over 3000 people joined the Pirate Party, raising its membership from under 15,000 to over 18,000, making it the 5th largest, and the most popular political party within the youth demographic. The Pirate Party will however require at least 100,000 votes to gain a seat in the European Parliament.

Politics aside, future victories for copyright holders are looking increasingly shaky as Bitorrent tracking sites such as The Pirate Bay are about to be replaced by applications such as the Tribler. Where the current crop of bittorrent filesharing applications need to be pointed at torrent tracking sites such as The Pirate Bay to find files, Tribler's searches are done over the networks of fellow bittorrent users, sidestepping centralised torrent tracking sites altogether.

With iPredator about to launch, downloaders will be easily able to anonymously continue their activities whilst Tribler will leave no centralised point of vulnerability for the prosecution and policing of copyright infringers. Both Tribler and the iPredator service are merely the opening salvos fired in a technological arms race. The ball is now firmly in the court of slow moving regulators who will need to step up the development of countermeasures if they intend to make in-roads into enforcing copyright infringement.

* Disclaimer: Although Pat Pilcher Works for Telecom, his opinions do not represent those of his employer.


Ovo me podsetilo na stanovitu "piratsku partiju SRBIJE" i... radi punog ugođaja posetite sajt.
Quote

Ne politika, ne NVO, ne grupa gradana! Srpski pirati: Wiki-like ljudi današnjice u novim komunikacijama!

Istinski umetnik živi kroz stvaranje i za stvarenje. Ali ne, danas ste priznati umetnik jedino ako imate milione na racunu, overenu avionsku kartu za evakuaciju iz zemlje u slucaju sranja i jake veze sa establišmentom.

Taj film naravno nikada necu gledati. Obrisacu kantu sa njim.

Deljenje je briga.

Mi smo iznad sistema! Nemamo akta, nemamo dokumenta, nemamo potpise i pečate, nemamo lažne obaveze i dvojne dogovore. Mi smo dovoljno svesni svojih razlika i nećemo se nikada njih odreći! Nemamo potrebu da mislimo isto ili da se tako deklarišemo. Nikada nikome nećemo klimati glavom niti ćemo praviti kompromise oko fundamentalnih vrednosti!

Decentralizacija!
Fuck bg centrala!!! (Decentralizacija, jebeš beogradsku centralizaciju!!!)

   1.  Ostati po svaku cenu van političkog sistema Srbije kakav je danas. Politički sistem Srbije je trenutno najveća nacionalna bolest, veći i od zlostavljanja, nasilja, narkomanije, trgovine ljudima, nekulture i primitivizma.
   2. Doći u situaciju da utičemo na Zakon jedino wiki mehanizmima iznošenja prave vrednosti.
   3. Znaj svoje mesto! Ne zaboravi ko si i odakle si!
   4. Kolektivna svest ali jedino kroz pojedinačnu.
   5. Uticaj na okolinu kroz znanje i ideje.
   6. Poštovanje volje i interesovanja onog pored tebe kao suštinska nijansa u odnosu.

Sigh! Muka mi je od vas polovnjaka, malograđanštine i skorojevića!!!

 :|

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.088
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #14 on: 20-04-2009, 08:26:08 »
hehe, dojaja ima izgleda forum, nikad nisam vido takav skin. :)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #15 on: 20-04-2009, 09:00:05 »
Stvarno sjajan skin za forum. A i zanimljiva inicijativa... Sprsko a naše, ko bi reko.

Kler_Vojant

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 641
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #16 on: 22-04-2009, 02:39:32 »

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #17 on: 22-04-2009, 09:43:55 »
Pa, da, imaš na Pajratbeju već danima isti poziv na akciju. Naravno, mi non-EU citizens na ovo za sada ne možemo da utičemo...

Kler_Vojant

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 641
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #18 on: 22-04-2009, 11:21:26 »
Ma, kakav pirate bay, sajt prekjucerasnjice. Mene zanima ta procena, da se oni kojima je do interneta najvise stalo (ne wannabe pirati i sta ti ja znam) nista ne pitaju.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #19 on: 22-04-2009, 13:38:49 »
Malo si čudno formulisao rečenicu... U svakom slučaju, net neutrality je stara rak-rana u očima korporacija i ne treba da čudi što pritiskaju zakonodavce da omoguće da se ona 'prevaziđe'.

Kler_Vojant

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 641
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #20 on: 22-04-2009, 14:44:02 »
Ma svaka moja recenica je u stilu popuni praznine. I kapiram ja taj "leak" slobode koji pokusava da se zapusi, samo me zanimaju detalji.
Sto rece stari Bob, za re-evoluciju nam treba jos trave i jos interneta. :)
I sada ovo.
(Look at my) big furry eyebrows of worry.
 :?:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #21 on: 22-04-2009, 15:03:49 »
Ne znam koji nivo detalja ti treba, ali evo entry level a već ćeš se sam snaći za dalje:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Doduše, ovo se sve manje više odnosi na američku stranu priče, sa referencama na njihovo zakonodavstvo itd., ali odatle je i krenulo.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 30.039
Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #22 on: 29-04-2009, 18:14:09 »
2 relevantna filma:

Steal this Film (2006)
Runtime: 32 min
Language: English
Country: UK | Germany
Color: Color
IMDb Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422757/

Director: n/a
Cast:
Anakata, Rsms, TIAMO, Fraux, Rick Falkvinge,
Alex Cox, Richard Dreyfuss, John Kennedy, Dan Glickman et al.

Description: "Steal This Film is a film series documenting the movement against intellectual property produced by The League of Noble Peers and released via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer protocol. Two parts, and one special The Pirate Bay trial edition of the first part, have been released so far, and The League of Noble Peers is working on 'Steal this Film - The Movie' and a new project entitled 'The Oil of the 21st Century'. (...)

Part One, shot in Sweden and released in August 2006, combines accounts from prominent players in the Swedish piracy culture (The Pirate Bay, Piratbyrån, and the Pirate Party) with found material, propaganda-like slogans and Vox Pops.

It includes interviews with The Pirate Bay members Fredrik Neij (tiamo), Gottfrid Svartholm (anakata) and Peter Sunde (brokep) that were later re-used by agreement in the documentary film Good Copy Bad Copy, as well as with Piratbyrån members Rasmus Fleischer (rsms), Johan (krignell) and Sara Andersson (fraux).

Download Links:
http://rapidshare.com/files/226644617/Steal_this_Film_I.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226651137/Steal_this_Film_I.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226658105/Steal_this_Film_I.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226662233/Steal_this_Film_I.part4.rar

Rar Password: none

Steal this Film II (2007)     
(Report Dead Links)


Rating: n/a
Runtime: 45 min
Language: English
Country: UK | Germany
Color: Color
IMDb Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422758/

Director: Jamie King
Cast:
Peter Sunde, Erik, Rick Prelinger, Howard Rheingold, Fred von Lohmann, Elizabeth Eisenstein, Lawrence Liang, Felix Stalder, Sebastian Lütgert, Joseph Licklider (archive footage), Adam Burns, Eben Moglen, Yochai Benkler, Robert Luxemburg, Craig Baldwin, The Grime Reaper, Wiley, et al.

Description: "Do not seek permission to copy this film. Anyone who fails to redistribute this work, or impedes others from doing so, will be ostracised. All devices capable of being used to share this film should be so deployed. We ask the audience to remain vigilant in promoting such activity and to report docile consumption to cinema staff. Thank you."



"Part Two of Steal This Film (sometimes subtitled 'The Dissolving Fortress') was produced during 2007. It premiered (in a preliminary version) at the 'The Oil of the 21st Century - Perspectives on Intellectual Property' conference in Berlin, Germany, November 2007.

Thematically, part Two examines the technological and cultural aspects of the copyright wars, and the cultural and economic implications of the internet. It includes an exploration of Mark Getty's infamous statement that 'intellectual property is the oil of the 21st century'. Part two draws parallels between the impact of the printing press and the internet in terms of making information accessible beyond a privileged group or 'controllers'. The argument is made that the decentralised nature of the internet makes the enforcement of conventional copyright impossible. Adding to this the internet turns consumers into producers, by way of consumer generated content, leading to the sharing, mashup and creation of content not motivated by financial gains. This has fundamental implications for market based media companies. The documentary asks 'How will society change' and states 'This is the Future - And it has nothing to do with your bank balance'.

Download Links:
http://rapidshare.com/files/226669602/Steal_this_Film_II.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226676631/Steal_this_Film_II.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226683871/Steal_this_Film_II.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226694246/Steal_this_Film_II.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226701872/Steal_this_Film_II.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226709660/Steal_this_Film_II.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/226717314/Steal_this_Film_II.part7.rar

Rar Password: none
dottore di sinistra scienzia, anti-papa-illuminatore di parallel-splatterpunk;
"балкански Тарантино за филмски рецензии"

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #23 on: 07-06-2009, 15:11:05 »

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #24 on: 08-06-2009, 13:52:29 »
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/



Pirate Party Wins and Enters The European Parliament
Written by Ernesto on June 07, 2009

The Pirate Party has won a huge victory in the Swedish elections and is marching on to Brussels. After months of campaigning against well established parties, the Pirate Party has gathered enough votes to be guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament.

When the Swedish Pirate Party was founded in early 2006, the majority of the mainstream press were skeptical, with some simply laughing it away. But they were wrong to dismiss this political movement out of hand. Today, the Pirate Party accomplished what some believed to be the impossible, by securing a seat in the European Parliament.

With 99.9% of the districts counted the Pirates have 7.1 percent of the votes, beating several established parties. This means that the Pirate Party will get at least one, but most likely two of the 18 (+2) available seats Sweden has at the European Parliament.

When we asked Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge about the outcome, he told TorrentFreak: “We’ve felt the wind blow in our sails. We’ve seen the polls prior to the election. But to stand here, today, and see the figures coming up on that screen… What do you want me to say? I’ll say anything”

“Together, we have today changed the landscape of European politics. No matter how this night ends, we have changed it,” Falkvinge said. “This feels wonderful. The citizens have understood it’s time to make a difference. The older politicians have taken apart young peoples’ lifestyle, bit by bit. We do not accept that the authorities’ mass-surveillance,” he added.
Rick Falkvinge celebrating tonight’s election win

pirate party vistory

The turnout at the elections is 43 percent, a little higher than the at the 2004 elections. This would mean that roughly 200,000 Swedes have voted for the Pirate Party. This is a huge increase compared to the national elections of 2006 where the party got 34,918 votes.

Both national and international press have gathered in Stockholm where the Pirate Party is celebrating its landmark victory.
Falkvinge answering questions

pirate party vistory

At least partially, The Pirate Party puts its increased popularity down to harsh copyright laws and the recent conviction of the people behind The Pirate Bay. After the Pirate Bay verdict, Pirate Party membership more than tripled and they now have over 48,000 registered members, more than the total number of votes they received in 2006.

With their presence in Brussels, the Pirate Party hopes to reduce the abuses of power and copyright at the hands of the entertainment industries, and make those activities illegal instead. On the other hand they hope to legalize file-sharing for personal use.
Arrrr

pirate party vistory

“It’s great fun to be a pirate right now”, Christian Engström, Vice Chairman of the Pirate Party told the press when he arrived.

Update: Sweden has 20 seats, but until the Lisbon treaty passes only 18 with voting rights. This means that the Pirate Party will have 2 seats.

Update: In Germany the Pirate Party got approximately 1 percent of the votes, not enough for a seat in the European Parliament. Andreas Popp, lead candidate for the German Pirate Party is pleased and told TorrentFreak: “This was the first time, we ran for the European elections. And although many voters have hardly known us, we got a great result. This shows, that many citizens identify themselves with our goals. I want to thank all people who supported us, we could not have done that without them. We have fulfilled our minimal goal of 0,5%. Now we can start up for real!”

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #25 on: 09-06-2009, 09:47:58 »
Arrrr  :)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #26 on: 19-06-2009, 09:58:53 »
Novo poglavlje u istoriji ljudske gluposti:

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

Quote
MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #27 on: 01-07-2009, 10:34:18 »
Šokantne nove vesti. Pahrat Bej se prodaje i kompanija koja ga kupuje hoće da vodi legitiman biznis, ali da to i dalje znači slobodnu razmenu fajlova, uz kompenzaciju vlasnicima IP-a. Mislim da je to nemoguće u ovom trewnutku u ljuckoj istoriji, ali da vidimo.

http://suprbay.org/showthread.php?t=57484

Quote
http://thepiratebay.org/blog/164


Quote:
Yes, it's true.

News reached the press today in Sweden - The Pirate Bay might get aquired by Global Gaming Factory X AB.

A lot of people are worried. We're not and you shouldn't be either!

TPB is being sold for a great bit underneath it's value if the money would be the interesting part. It's not. The interesting thing is that the right people with the right attitude and possibilities keep running the site.
As all of you know, there's not been much news on the site for the past two-three years. It's the same site essentially. On the internets, stuff dies if it doesn't evolve. We don't want that to happen.

We've been working on this project for many years. It's time to invite more people into the project, in a way that is secure and safe for everybody. We need that, or the site will die. And letting TPB die is the last thing that is allowed to happen!

If the new owners will screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it. That's the biggest insurance one can have that the site will be run in the way that we all want to. And - you can now not only share files but shares with people. Everybody can indeed be the owner of The Pirate Bay now. That's awesome and will take the heat of us.

The old crew is still around in different ways. We will also not stop being active in the politics of the internets - quite the opposite. Now we're fueling up for going into the next gear. TPB will have economical muscles to let people evolve it. It will team up with great technicians to evolve the protocols. And we, the people interested in more than just technology, will have the time to focus on that. It's win-win-win.

The profits from the sale will go into a foundation that is going to help with projects about freedom of speech, freedom of information and the openess of the nets. I hope everybody will help out in that and realize that this is the best option for all. Don't worry - be happy!
Posted Heute 10:43 von TPB 

Q: Does that mean the RIAA/MPAA/etc now owns TPB?
A: Fuck no!

Q: Does that mean I will have to pay to download stuff in future?
A: Fuck no!

Q: Is everything/anything written in stone?
A: Fuck no! lets wait and see how everything turns out... before jumping to conclusions

best wishes
tob

PS: dont bombard Brokep with msg at the moment, he has a full inbox and will be posting on twitter and his blog ...

http://twitter.com/Brokep

http://blog.brokep.com/


Quote:
12:47 anakata
it WONT become a fucking pay-99c-to-download-a-song service and there will still be a public tracker so, those misunderstandings may be laid to rest 

Quote:
Update 1.0

Q: Will Superbay be sold?
A: No. it will stay as it is... or it will be updated to a newer version under the current Management. 

Quote:
Update 2.0

Q: Will the sister sites be sold?
A: No. We might finally have some time to put more effort into them... this would include:

http://suprbay.org/
http://sharereactor.com/
http://thevideobay.org/
http://pastebay.com/
http://bayimg.com/
http://slopsbox.com/
http://baywords.com/
http://suprnova.org/

Quote:
From Twitter (Translated)

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Is this correct? http://bit.ly/1YR0m

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Yes.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep What a thing! Who gets the money? Who owns the TPB?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Foreign company, with demands from our side to finance a fund for internet projects. We get no money.

Daniel Goldberg:
@ brokep Cool. What do you mean internet project? Will you not have to use the money to cover the damages?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg Internet Project in the form of political activism, etc. TPB changed hands in 2006 already to not be sued.

Daniel Goldberg
@ brokep Congratulations, the scoop! Who is the owner of TPB today?

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg It’s partly why we’ve have been so sure that lawsuits against us is pointless in the end … :-)

Peter S Kolmisoppi:
@ danielg0ldberg I do not think that I may say for legal reasons. But they are people we trust. And have conditioned things too.. 


will update this as we move along... if you have a question ask it in irc or in the discussion thread... Quote:
Whatever happens at the end of this case, Pirate Bay wins. 

Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #28 on: 07-07-2009, 17:24:21 »
Uprkos ovim umirujućim tvrdnjama, nikako nisam miran  :(
"homofob, rusofil i šovinista, pokupio si sve najgore sa balkanskog podnjeblja"

Novi smakosvjetovni blog!

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 17.371
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #29 on: 21-10-2009, 21:48:05 »
moj omiljeni sajt se vratio: http://www.xtreme-load.com/new/
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

shrike

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 720
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #30 on: 13-11-2009, 13:25:17 »
Možda nema direktne veze s PirateBayom ali ima veze s piraterijom (sajberkriminalom, dečjom pornografijom...):

http://torrentfreak.com/cofee-forensic-tool-leaks-to-what-cd-admins-ban-it-091108/
"This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against me!"

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #31 on: 20-12-2009, 14:58:11 »
E, dakle, evo daljeg razvoja priče:

The Pirate Bay Extinguishes Its Torrent Tracker

Quote
So The Pirate Bay shut down its tracker today. That shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone following the shenanigans surrounding the Swedish-run website, which has been battling foreign media companies for years. A big verdict was handed down to the site on April 17, 2009 (TMT News), ruling all the involved parties guilty of facilitating copyright infringement. Each Pirate Bay member was sentenced to a year in prison and had to pay a combined 30 million Swedish krona fine ($3.5 million in U.S. dollars).

But what should come as a shock is the site itself is not being shut down. The owners of The Pirate Bay have opted to continue running the site without a tracker. Briefly, a BitTorrent tracker is what currently powers the technology. A tracker does not house any content itself, instead it contains information about all the places where you CAN get the data, mainly end-user computers. Trackers have been the source of litigation for just about every site that’s been shut down, as it can be successfully argued that, while the trackers do not house copy-written data themselves, they facilitate the transfer of said data.

So how the hell is this torrent shizz gonna work without a tracker? And the Hydra replied: DHT, PEX, and Magnet links. I’ll explain each briefly, then use a hot analogy to show how they click together like sexy Lego.

 DHT is a technology that predates BitTorrent, and it’s currently available in just about every torrent client out there. It works by building a web of data behind the scenes, which can provide information on a needed basis. Think of it as a phone book (remember those?) split apart. Every household has a chunk of the worldwide phone book. Whenever you need some data that’s not in your piece of the phone book, you shout real loud until somebody hands over the relevant chunk of the book.

 PEX is a fairly new technology that still has some kinks to work out. It works in a similar fashion to DHT, but instead of compiling data, it compiles clients/nodes/people. So to continue our phone book analogy from above, instead of running around screaming your head off until you get what you want, you politely go ask your neighbors if either they have the chunk you need or if they know somebody who does. If your neighbors have no clue what you’re talking about, you’re still free to run around shouting until you find it.

 Magnet links are the last piece of the puzzle. They work by providing a link to the data, rather than to where the data is located. So, to keep with this phone book angle, let’s say you don’t even know the page on which the information is held. Using either method described above, you ask for the page that contains the relevant information. Somebody will eventually tell you the page, then you’re free to either run around like a nut or ask politely. It’s up to you.

Now, you might be thinking "this is boring," and you would be correct. Stay with me for another paragraph, because the interesting part in all of this is that The Pirate Bay is taking the first step towards a continual night terror for the media industries. There is NOBODY to sue except the end users. The Pirate Bay will house magnet links only. Magnet links don’t contain any data outside of a random string of numbers and letters. The Pirate Bay is no longer running the service that allows people to connect to each other. All that is handled within your torrent program. I wouldn’t doubt it if the next step is for the torrent programs to include some kind of search capability, making The Pirate Bay and other sites irrelevant. It took about 10 years, but we’ve finally come full circle with a quality replacement to Napster. Since all this new technology is based on open standards and protocols, anyone can design a program that will be play nice with the existing data. So even if Vuze or uTorrent gets shut down, another program can pick up the slack; it’s all the same phone book.


Zvuči dosta obećavajuće, yes?

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.065
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #32 on: 20-12-2009, 15:35:27 »
Dolazi vreme nezavisnih internet mreža.

raindelay

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 947
  • Disco Inferno
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #33 on: 04-01-2010, 13:54:15 »
 xfrenki
Bono net policing idea draws fire
Bono (Getty)
Bono's call was to "rally America...the most creative economy in the world"

Bono, frontman of rock band U2, has warned the film industry not to make the same mistakes with file-sharing that have dogged the music industry.

Writing for the New York Times, Bono claimed internet service providers were "reverse Robin Hoods" benefiting from the music industry's lost profits.

He hinted that China's efforts prove that tracking net content is possible.

The editorial drew sharp criticism, both on its economic merits and for the suggestion of net content policing.

"The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we're just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of '24' in 24 seconds," he wrote.

"A decade's worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators...the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business."

In a move that drew significant criticism, Bono went on to suggest that the feasibility of tracking down file-sharers had already been proven.

"We know from America's noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China's ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it's perfectly possible to track content," he said.

Several commentators assailed both the logic of net monitoring and the economic arguments of the essay, pointing out that U2 topped 2009's list of top-grossing live acts.

"Bono has missed that even a totalitarian government...can't effectively control net-content," tweeted Cory Doctorow, a blogger and journalist noted for his study of file-sharing policy.

"If only greed and ignorance could sequester carbon, Bono could FINALLY save the planet," he added. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8439200.stm
I WAS ANTI-OBAMA BEFORE IT WAS COOL

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.065
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #34 on: 04-01-2010, 14:51:25 »
Uvek je bio đubre i biće đubre - Bono  qpuke
I upamćen kao đubre.

cutter

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.910
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #35 on: 04-01-2010, 14:59:49 »
Quote from: Bono
reverse Robin Hoods

ajde da je rekao da su reverse cowgirls, pa da ga čovek nekako shvati...

Shozo Hirono

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.759
    • http://www.myspace.com/plan9soundsystem
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #36 on: 04-01-2010, 15:07:57 »
South Park Season 11 Commentary - More Crap

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 30.039
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #37 on: 04-01-2010, 15:09:07 »
bono je gono.

uostalom, zar nije već dobio nagradu kao the world's biggest TURD?!

edit - šozo me preteče!
dottore di sinistra scienzia, anti-papa-illuminatore di parallel-splatterpunk;
"балкански Тарантино за филмски рецензии"

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/

Mark

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.226
  • The proverbial stopped clock.
    • Janko Takac
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #38 on: 04-01-2010, 18:11:33 »
Prilicno je neverovatno da je industrija zabave spremna da na trziste izbaci i raznim kampanjama podrzi potpuno nove formate (Blu ray,SACD, HDTV,  etc.) ali ne i da pronadje nacine da sebe zastiti od piraterije...

Da se industrija zaista zeli zastititi, ulozili bi pare i nasli nacina da povrate kontrolu nad sadrzajima svojih izdanja, ali to ocigledno nije slucaj. Mislim da je ovde jasno da oni i dalje solidno zaradjuju ...
Dos'o Sveti Petar i kaze meni Djordje di je ovde put za Becej, ja mu kazem mani me se, on kaze: Pricaj ne's otici u raj!
E NES NI TI U BECEJ!

Melkor

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.535
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #39 on: 16-01-2010, 02:57:50 »
"Realism is a literary technique no longer adequate for the purpose of representing reality."

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #40 on: 16-01-2010, 09:17:16 »
Voistinu  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #41 on: 25-01-2011, 14:06:22 »
53 Billion Pirates Can't Be Wrong

Quote
Actually, 53 billion pirates can’t exist. The world population is estimated to be 6,892,982,184. But, according to the US Chamber of Commerce sponsored MarkMonitor’s report, this is how many site visits is generated by 43 “digital piracy” sites that were observed. To put that into perspective, this is about 7 visits each year by every single person of Earth’s estimated population at the time of this post.

Granted many of these sites are probably visited by the same people, these figures are still quite impressive. At the time of this writing, thepiratebay.org alone claims 40,412,921 peers are active. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing just how many individuals visit pirate sites.

I want to take a look at what I think is a ridiculous quote where this report equates the sell of fake drugs with sharing digital media.

“Whether it is the sale of counterfeit bags and fake pharmaceuticals or illegal distribution of movies, music, and software, online IP theft is theft—plain and simple,” added Tepp. “Rogue websites have no place in a legitimate online market. If left unchecked, these sites will continue to flourish at our expense and further hinder our economic growth. The MarkMonitor report underscores the urgency of enacting proactive policies to enhance enforcement tools to shut down these rogue websites.”

“Plain and simple.” A fact paid for by the nation’s tax dollars. Now let’s look at the vast difference in visits generated by people downloading media vs people purchasing counterfeit drugs and other vids.

* The 43 sites that were classified as ‘digital piracy’ generated over 146 million visits per day, representing more than 53 billion visits per year.
* The combined traffic to the 48 sites selling counterfeit physical goods is more than 87 million visits per year.
* The 26 sites selling counterfeit prescription drugs (separate from the counterfeit physical goods analysis) generated 51 million visits per year.

Wow! That is quite a difference visitors. Sure, file-sharing is free, but I would have thought with something as plain and simple as “theft is theft” we wouldn’t see such an astonishing gap between the visits by “thieves” to one type of site over another. If this yields any useful information, it is that the amount of people willing to download from a pirate source is far less than the amount of people willing to buy from a pirated source, let alone from a legitimate source.

Data transferred does not equal a sale lost!

The rate of software piracy in the US is reported to be at a rate of 20%. It is a 59.9% average across all nations studied worldwide as of the Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study of 2007.

Strangely, a much lesser rate of software piracy is reported in regions with larger software markets. Meanwhile, the dollar losses claimed in these regions is tremendously higher. We’re talking billions of dollars higher. How can this possibly be you ask? A very astute question. I’m not quite certain it is possible. Let’s see what the report has to say about it.

Lower piracy regions and markets like Japan, North America, and Western Europe have among the highest dollar losses. These markets are so large that piracy at relatively low levels can generate significant losses.

Wtf? Did this report by the Business Software Alliance just state that dollar losses from piracy have little to do with the actual amount of piracy? Yes it did. Such figures are generated by the industry based on how much they have for sale, not how much is pirated. If I offer licensing to use software which I price at one billion dollars and one person uses it without purchasing from authorized distributors, I have lost a billion dollars that I would otherwise have been guaranteed.

In other words, the software industry has control over the amount of losses reported by way of creating a larger market. A larger market equals larger losses.

Losses
The retail value of pirated software is calculated using the size of the legitimate software market and the
piracy rate. The actual formula is: Value of Pirated Software = (Legitimate Market)/ (1-Piracy Rate)- Legitimate Market.

DC finds that worldwide losses from piracy increased 20%, [...] from 2006 to 2007. Losses to the industry from piracy were calculated using the known size of the legitimate software market in a country or region and using the piracy rate to derive the retail value of software that was not paid for.

Here I was being told by the government, news media and intellectual property industries that pirates are to blame for the software market’s losses and along comes the software industry telling me they themselves are responsible for the amount of losses by increasing market size.

How are these piracy rates calculated anyway?

The total software base is the amount of software,
legitimate and pirated, installed during the year. It is obtained by multiplying the number of PCs receiving
new software during the year by the average number of software packages per PC that were installed in 2007.

Oh. Right off the bat they are calculating based on figures they can’t possibly fathom. Nobody knows how much software I’ve installed from pirated sources with out purchasing. It could be anywhere from zero to thousands of software packages. Multiply that unknown amount by the number of people who install pirated software and… oh wait you can’t. The amount of people who download and install pirated software is also not known. I don’t know what to say. Should I bother posting any more about how the BSA or other content industries gather such data?

Nothing gained does not equal something lost! We have a serious problem when we enable the same industries claiming a loss to have a direct influence over creating the amount of losses claimed. This is one of the largest threats to the security of the nation’s economy and puts a great deal of jobs at risk. These markets should not be allowed to grow, as they have demonstrated market growth as being the largest cause of creating economic damage. We simply can not afford to plan for economic growth based on calculating anything other than real numbers above zero. These hypothetical losses are baseless and have, thus far, only led to a tremendous amount of tax dollars being spent on poor research and attempts to enforce laws against non-commercial data transfer.

Which is the real economic loss? The data transferred for free or the black hole of government spending to pursue am imaginary threat?

Update: It looks as tho RapidShare is fed up with biased reports and may seek legal action against MarkMonitor. The fact that RapidShare has been operating as a legitimate service for years and has been labelled a “digital piracy” site in this report really takes away any chance credibility the report may have had. -STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS ON SHIT REPORTS US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!!!
Edit: The USCC is not an agency of the US gov’t (I have always assumed them to be. That “US” part fooled me >_<). They are known to be the biggest spending lobbyist group annually. Tax dollars are not directly spent on these reports which are in turn used to persuade government officials to spend tax dollars on things like shutting down services like RapidShare, apparently.

Also, here is zeropaid post regarding the 53 billion visits reported. It displays some interesting examples of just how deceptive such reports can be. I think we can safely toss MarkMonitor’s report in the rubbish bin.


akhnaton

  • Against all
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 1.055
  • I Walk Alone
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #42 on: 25-01-2011, 14:16:28 »
53.000.000.000 /  6.892.982.184 to mu dođe da je svaki stanovnik zemlje 7,688979687634138 pirat!!!! Svako od nas je nešto preko sedam puta pirat.... jeeeee :D
The Truth Will Prevail
Ankh Em Maat  since 1973.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #43 on: 25-01-2011, 14:32:42 »
Evo još na slične teme:


How many Internet pirates are there, anyway?

(Neće se videti grafikoni kad iskopiram tekst pa preporučujem klik na link.)

Quote
The music industry's latest annual report on the digital world has one main "ask" in it: would governments around the world please, please, pretty please get off their collective lard-filled posteriors and start passing the sorts of laws that would dragoon Internet providers into the antipiracy wars?

Whatever one thinks of this as a policy approach, it certainly represents a considerable shift in Internet regulation. Given the strength of the medicine, it's worth examining just how bad the disease is; that is, how many music pirates actually exist?

Given draconian public pronouncements in the past that, for instance, 95 percent of digital music has been illegally acquired, one might be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone on the 'Net is a pirate. It's not true. In fact, according to the music industry's own research, only a small percentage of Internet users are even pirates in the first place—and even the pirates turn out to spend money on music.

Pirates by the numbers
For US numbers, we can turn to Warner Music, one of the world's largest music labels and a company that devoted plenty of time to researching the audience for its products. Last year, Warner execs stopped by the offices of the Federal Communications Commission to brief the agency on its findings—and what it found was that 13 percent of Americans were music pirates.


Music listeners, by category
Warner Music
That's still a substantial number, but the effects of that piracy are mitigated by the fact that even the pirates spend their money on music. As you might expect, they listen to more music and spend less money than other groups, but Warner's own chart shows that piracy doesn't cut one's expenditures to nothing. And, as the company notes in another slide, the pirates "tend to drive high discovery for others ('others always want my advice on music')."


Even pirates spend some money
Warner Music
Piracy also skews young, with that 13 percent figure being heavily weighted by 13- to 25-year-olds. Above 25, the figure drops rapidly.


Pirates vary by age group
Warner Music
The situation in Europe is similar. In 2009, research by Jupiter Networks found that 16 percent of Internet users there "regularly" use P2P networks to share and acquire music, while a 2010 study from Harris Interactive found that 14 percent of UK Internet users get video content from P2P networks. (Note that, because these numbers are only for Internet users, they would be even lower if applied to the entire population, putting them more in line with the US figures.)

Pirates turn out to have large music collections—Warner estimates the average piratical treasure chest to hold 3,100 tracks—and they do share huge amounts of music online. But they account for relatively small percentages of Internet users, and even this percentage isn't a group of total freeloaders.

This fits with recent academic work on file-sharing, which last year looked at various file-sharing studies and concluded that about 20 percent of the music industry's woes could be blamed on online infringement; the other 80 percent was caused by things like the decline of the album, the rise of singles on iTunes, and the death of high-priced CDs.

Further reading
Warner Music presentation to the FCC (fjallfoss.fcc.gov)


I na drugu stranu:

Cleaning the barnacles from the S.S. Copyright

Quote
Bashing current copyright law is easy—just ask Jessica Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. She calls current US copyright a "swollen, barnacle-encrusted collection of incomprehensible prose." Or, to change the metaphor to aging, copyright law is "old, outmoded, inflexible, and beginning to display the symptoms of multiple systems failure."

Suggesting something new to replace it can be a harder job, and Litman turns her attention to that task in an unpublished new paper called "Real Copyright Reform" (PDF). Part of a spate of recent reform proposals (Public Knowledge is heading another high-profile effort, for example), Litman's quest to reform the 1976 Copyright Act is, as she acknowledges, quixotic.

"None of these proposals is likely to attract serious attention from Congress or copyright lobbyists," she writes. "Right now the copyright legislation playing field is completely controlled by its beneficiaries. They have persuaded Congress that it is pointless to try to enact copyright laws without their assent."

Still, academics have never limited themselves to something as tawdry as "reality," and Litman's theoretical work here is no exception. Her entire reform proposal is based on a few key principles: returning power to both creators and consumers, radically simplifying the law so that people can understand it without a lawyer, and beating the record companies, publishers, and movie studios about the head with a shovel.

Who might object to that? The big distributors, for one, would probably not be pleased with any plan devoted to ousting "the current vested intermediaries from their control of pieces of copyright, and return that power to the creators."

Removing the barnacles
Litman's reform is predicated on the idea that current law gives too much advantage to distributors. That model was more appropriate decades ago when distribution was a capital-intensive business that featured printing presses, fleets of delivery trucks, national retail stores, CD printing plants, and television transmitters.

In today's brave New World, "the new economics of digital distribution mean that we no longer need to shape our copyright law in ways that disadvantage creators vis-à-vis distributors unless we want to," writes Litman.

In fact, current copyright law may contain the seeds of its own destruction by breeding a general contempt for the very idea of copyright. If the general public looks at laws like the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act of 1998 (which added 20 years to many existing copyrights) and sees only rent-seeking behavior by major corporations, copyright itself can come to seem illegitimate. Debacles like the Sony BMG rootkit haven't helped, nor has the entire field of DRM, which has largely failed to stop piracy but has energized and outraged a generation of tech-savvy kids.

"A public citizenry that believes its copyright law is illegitimate may respond by withdrawing its support from the system," writes Litman. "Enforcing copyright law in an atmosphere of public cynicism about the legitimacy of the law is a difficult task. A public that complies with copyright only because it's afraid of the copyright police will soon find ways to invade or restrain the copyright police. The long-term health of the copyright system, thus, requires that members of the public believe that their investment in copyright is well spent."

The other big goal of this reform proposal is simplification. "The fact that legacy copyright rules bind ordinary people engaging in everyday transactions, but are too complicated to explain to them, is nothing for us to be proud of," Litman writes. She cites the many distinctions "that makes no apparent sense."

"If you tell the owner of a sports bar that the copyright statute allows him to install up to six television sets in his sports bar so long as the picture is turned off, but only one television set if the picture is turned on, he will understandably tell you that the law is looney."

To accomplish these goals, Litman's main suggestion is that the multiple rights provided for in copyright law (the reproduction right, the right to make derivative works, the right to make public performances, etc.) be compacted into a single right: the author's right to control commercial exploitation of the work.

Anyone engaged in noncommercial use of a given work would be free to do so without seeking a license and without worrying about lawsuits. Things like fair use would still exist, but would only come into play in commercial exploitations (such as when The Daily Show uses news clips from other networks).

This single change would reduce the length and complexity of copyright law, make it easier for creators to understand and control their rights, and could cut down the power of the distributors and intermediaries. One of the key problems with this proposal, of course, is defining "noncommercial use." P2P Defendants have often made the case that their file-sharing was noncommercial, for example; the recording industry has repeatedly argued in court that, because the songs were being sold commercially and because at least some of those people downloading files would have purchased them, even actions done without payment can be "commercial."

Termination and readers' rights
Litman also argues that creators should have more chances to take back their copyrights. Currently, US law does provide certain "termination rights" to artists who want to reclaim the copyrights they signed away. These rights are difficult enough to access and practice that Litman calls them "fake." In her view, creators should be able to terminate their contracts with the readers after 15 years, subject to a five-year notice.

The reform proposal also recognizes a greater place for "readers' rights." This idea goes back to the earlier concerns about the legitimacy of copyright law. "If copyright law expressly recognizes the reader, listener, and viewer interests must sometimes be protected against overreaching creators and distributors, it is much easier for members of the public to invest in the principle that copyright should protect creators and distributors from exploitation of readers, listeners, and viewers."

In addition, the Copyright Office would gain a new position: the "copyright ombudsman." The ombudsman's job would be to "explain the copyright system to the public and articulate the public's interest to the staff of the Copyright Office and to Congress."

Finally, Litman takes a broad whack at collecting societies like ASCAP, BMI, and SoundExchange, arguing that such entrenched middlemen need to be "de-trenched." In this ideal future, the collecting societies would be reborn as more transparent, more competitive voluntary organizations.

Why is reform so tough?
Reform is tough for many reasons, including the fact that it takes substantial legislative time, and more pressing matters of war and economics continue to dominate Congressional attention spans. But it's also tough due to the sheer power of existing institutions, who wield armies of lawyers and lobbyists to prevent negative changes to the laws underlying their business models.

This resistance doesn't extend only to the obvious players; even copyright lawyers enjoy the complexities of the current system. "Copyright lawyers have great affection for the arcane bits of the current system," Litman writes. "Knowing how to navigate distinctions that make no apparent sense proves our membership in a priestly class of copyright-knowers. The arcaneness of the rules is tolerable when the club of copyright rule followers is small. If we are going to insist that the rules apply more broadly, though, we need to make them sensible, and a necessary first step is to make them simpler."

To probably change US copyright laws, then, Litman believes that we need nothing less than a wholesale change in the ways that laws are made—a position echoed by Litman's friend Larry Lessig of Stanford, who currently devotes most of his time to a project called "Change Congress" with exactly this goal. Until the funding mechanisms underlying our democracy are changed, Lessig believes, real advances on a host of issues (including but not limited to copyright) will be difficult to come by.

Even if you share this view, however, there is no need to get too pessimistic. Especially on copyright law, the general public has shown itself to be interested, even passionate, in the subject over the past decade in ways that it never did before. Litman's paper also notes this trend, pointing out that copyright now affects "tens of millions of ordinary people whose use of YouTube and peer-to-peer file-sharing networks gives them a direct, personal stake in the copyright law. Nobody has yet succeeded in mobilizing them into a significant political force, but the majority of them are over 18, and many of them vote."

If Congress does eventually take up a major copyright reform bill, expect the debate to be both loud and lengthy—as it was recently in Canada when the government launched a major new copyright proposal and found itself facing unanticipated resistance from a whole new class of creators and consumers.

Further reading
Read Litman's voluminous set of copyright papers from her 20+ years of teaching (www-personal.umich.edu)

akhnaton

  • Against all
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 1.055
  • I Walk Alone
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #44 on: 25-01-2011, 14:35:06 »
Many of us there is!!!
The Truth Will Prevail
Ankh Em Maat  since 1973.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #45 on: 25-01-2011, 14:45:25 »
A, evo i nešto interesantno o tri najprominentnje nacionalne filmske produkcije koje operišu u zemljama gde legalna zaštita autorskih prava postoji tek kao koncept:

How to Thrive Among Pirates

Quote
Shangri-La is the official name of a small Chinese town in a mountainous valley on the edge of the Tibetan plateau. Formerly called Zhongdian, the town was renamed Shangri-La by local businessmen with the blessings of the national government in order to spur tourism. Who would not want to visit Shangri-La? I’ve been twice, and sorry to say, it is no Shangri-La. But on my last visit there a pristine 6-inch layer of snow in April covered the normally dusty and dilapidated old town, and in this clean robe it actually looked picturesque.



Old guy on the main street of Shangri-La.

For hundreds of years this frontier town has been an overnight stop for travelers along the winding road from the agriculturally rich highlands of Yunnan to the dry wind-swept lands of Tibet. The shops along the main street of Shangri-La today sell an exotic assortment of household goods to a steady stream of Tibetan and minority farmers trudging in from the countryside. A hundred one-room shops along a drab main street offer sturdy leather boots, brightly woven carpets, farm hardware, rugged horse blankets, hot water thermos bottles, solar battery rechargers, cheap iron tools, and fancy striped fabrics and ribbons. Mixed among this traditional ware were dozens of shops that sold nothing but DVDs for thousands of movies. A few of the shops had a greater selection of movies for sale or rent than your local Blockbuster. Some of the thousands were Hollywood hits, some were Hong Kong kungfu episodes, or Korean series, but most were Chinese-made films. Almost all of the discs were cheap (less than $3) pirated copies. The new digital “freeconomy” where copies flow without payment is not just a trait of cosmopolitan cities; information wants to be free even in the most remote parts of the globe.

I was in China, in part, to answer this simple question: how does the China film industry continue to produce films in a land where everything seems to be pirated? If no one is paying the filmmakers, how (why) do they keep producing films? But my question was not just about China. The three largest film industries in the world are India, Nigeria and China. Nigeria cranks out some 2,000 films a year (Nollywood), India produces about 1,000 a year (Bollywood) and China less than 500. Together they produce four times as many films per year as Hollywood. Yet each of these countries is a haven, even a synonym, for rampant piracy. How do post-copyright economics work? How do you keep producing more movies than Hollywood with no copyright protection for your efforts?

This question was pertinent because the rampant piracy in the movie cultures of India, China and Nigeria seemed to signal a future for Hollywood. Here in the West we seem to be headed to YouTubeland were all movies are free. In other words we are speeding towards the copyright-free zones represented by China, India and Nigeria today. If so, do those movie industries operating smack in the middle of the cheap, ubiquitous copies flooding these countries have any lessons to teach Hollywood on how to survive?

The answers uncovered by my research surprised me. My first surprise was the discovery that in each of these famously pirate-laden countries, piracy is not really rampant – at least not in the way it is usually portrayed by copyright police. Piracy of imported (i.e., Hollywood) films is rife, but locally produced films are pirated to a lesser degree. The reasons are complex and subtle.



Most Nollywood films are completed in two weeks.

The first consideration is quality. Nigerian films are a unique blend of a soap-opera and a Bollywood musical; there’s a bunch of talking then a bunch of dancing. To call some of the Nigerian films low-budget would be to insult low-budget films. Many of the thousands of Nigerian movies are more like no-budget films. But even big-budget Bollywood films are cheap compared to Hollywood, so the total revenue needed to sustain their production is much smaller than Hollywood blockbusters. Naturally the smaller the costs, the less needed to recoup the expenses. For some films even a trickle of revenues may be enough.



Posters on the Lagos street (via Esquire)

But more importantly, low quality is not just a trait of illegal stuff. In Nigeria, particularly in the poorer north, a vast network of small-time reproduction centers serve up copies of films for an audience of many millions. Originally an underground network of copy centers replicated VHS tapes; now the network pumps out optical disks. In the former days of VHS tape copies, the official versions had much better printed covers. These readable and brightly colored covers were their chief selling point, and printing the covers was the bottleneck at which the film industry exerted their policing. But these days in Nigeria, as in the rest of the developing world, movie disks are usually VCDs (video CDs) rather than DVDs. Although lower in resolution, VCDs are easier to duplicate, with cheaper blanks, and in a quality that is “good enough” on a cheap TV screen. These copies are rented out for a few cents from small dusty shacks. But often the cheap VCDs which rent for pennies are “legitimate” – duplicated under an arrangement with the movie producer. The filmmakers and the duplicators have cleverly reduced the price of legitimate discs near to the price of pirated disks. In fact the same operators will usually duplicate both. Since the legitimate disks aren’t that much more expensive than illicit ones, distributors have less incentive to bother with lower-quality pirated versions.



In addition the financing of films in Nigeria is closely aligned with the underground economy. Investing in a film is considered a smart way to launder money. Accounting practices are weak, transparency low, and if you are a thug with a lot of cash “to invest” you get to hang around movie stars by bankrolling a film. In short the distinction between black market disks and official disks generated with black market money is slim.

Nigerian filmmakers look to two other sources of revenue for their trickle of money: theaters and TV. Theaters in Nigeria offer a very precious commodity for very cheap ticket: air conditioning for several hours. The longer the film the better the deal. Theaters also offer a superior visual experience to watching a tape of VCD on an old television. You might actually be able to read the subtitles, or hear the background sounds. The full theatrical experience of a projected film is simply not copyable by a cheap optical disk. So box office sales remain the major revenue support for a film. As Nigeria’s nascent TV industry grows, its appetite for content means there is additional revenues for broadcasting films on either airways or cable systems.



Bollywood wall poster in Rajastan (via Meanest Indian)

Bollywood is likewise supported by air-conditioning. Few Indians have aircon in their homes, fewer own air-conditioned cars. Mid-afternoon in the summer you really don’t want to be anywhere else except in a cool theater for several hours – which is why Bollywood films can go on forever. You can sell a lot of movie tickets this way, even though someone could get the same movie for almost free as a DVD on the steaming hot, dusty street one block away.

Like Nigeria, India has a similar mixture of piracy and legitimacy in its film industry. Bollywood and mafia money are famously intertwined. In terms of money laundering, tax-avoidance, and covert money flows, the entire film industry is a gray market. The behind-the-scenes people making illegal copies of films also make the legal copies. And prices for legit and pirated versions are almost at parity.

So why even bother with pirated movies? Because India has had a very draconian censorship policy for official studio films. Their famous “no kissing” rule is but one example. This censorship has pushed niche films to the underground where they are served by the piracy network. If you want something independent, racy, out of the ordinary, or simply not in the mainstream, you are forced to patronize the pirates. This includes the filmmakers as well as the audience. If you produce an avant-garde film how else to get it seen? Cheap duplication on the street is the way a filmmaker will get his art out, further blurring the distinction between legit and illegal. As in Nigeria, this convergence means the purchase price of an official VCD may not be much more than a pirated version, about US$3. In effect Indian filmmakers see these low disc prices as advertising to lure the masses into cool theaters to see the latest releases on the glorious big screen. The hi-touch factor of the theaters is the reward for paying, and the pirated versions are the tax or costs for getting attention.

China also has a censorship problem. Big budget films are subsidized by the government, and live off theatrical release. In fact getting screen time in theaters is heavily politicized. Independent films can’t get booked in the limited number of theaters, so they get to their audience on optical disks. And if a viewer wants to watch a film not produced by state-sponsored studios they have to find one on the streets. As in India and Nigeria, the price of legitimate copies are close to pirated, so for consumers there is no difference between the two. You can rent a copy of either type for about 25 cents a night.

The third leg supporting indigenous film industries in lands without copyright enforcement is television. Particularly cable television. Television is a beast that must be fed every hour of the day, and the industry insiders I spoke to in India, China, and Nigeria all saw a television spot as a legitimate destination for independent artists. The sums paid for work appearing on cable TV were not large, but they were something. Because television runs on attention and is supported by ads, the issues of piracy are sidestepped. For some producers pirated discs on the street create an audience, which might translate into a call to run their work on TV, or else prompt an invitation to produce something new.

Where indigenous filmmakers feel the sting of piracy is not within their own countries but in the very active export market. Nigerian films are watched throughout African and in the Nigerian diaspora; likewise Indian films are early sought out throughout South Asia and the Mid-East and in deep Indian communities in the West. Chinese films are watched in East Asia. Most of this market is served by pirated editions, depriving the filmmakers of potential international income. In this way these ethnic film industries share the same woes as Hollywood. But in their home turf, where the success of a film really lies, piracy is a different animal than the specter predicted by Hollywood.

Back on the gritty streets in Shangri-La I went looking for that utopian dream: a DVD of a first run movie for a dollar. That dream was too optimistic, even for Shangri-La, but I did find a copy of the latest Harry Potter movie (with Chinese subtitles) for $3, and upon close inspection it sure looked like a legit version. Clean design, Chinese style, crisp printing on the box, no typos, official looking holograph seal, etc. It was most probably illegal, but who knows? It would take a lot of research to determine its true origins, and for most consumers, like me, a moot question since every DVD vendor in town seemed to have the same inventory of mixed goods, all priced about the same.

What do these gray zones have to teach us? I think the emerging pattern is clear. If you are a producer of films in the future you will:

1) Price your copies near the cost of pirated copies. Maybe 99 cents, like iTunes. Even decent pirated copies are not free; there is some cost to maintain integrity, authenticity, or accessibility to the work.

2) Milk the uncopyable experience of a theater for all that it is worth, using the ubiquitous cheap copies as advertising. In the west, where air-conditioning is not enough to bring people to the theater, Hollywood will turn to convincing 3D projection, state-of-the-art sound, and other immersive sensations as the reward for paying. Theaters become hi-tech showcases always trying to stay one step ahead of ambitious homeowners in offering ultimate viewing experiences, and in turn manufacturing films to be primarily viewed this way.

3) Films, even fine-art films, will migrate to channels were these films are viewed with advertisements and commercials. Like the infinite channels promised for cable TV, the internet is already delivering ad-supported free copies of films.

Producing movies in a copyright free environment is theoretically impossible. The economics don’t make sense. But in the digital era, there are many things that are impossible in theory but possible in practice – such as Wikipedia, Flickr, and PatientsLikeMe. Add to this list: filmmaking to an audience of pirates. Contrary to expectations and lamentations, widespread piracy does not kill commercial filmmaking. Existence proof: the largest movie industries on the planet. What they are doing today, we’ll be doing tomorrow. Those far-away lands that ignore copy-right laws are rehearsing our future.

Shozo Hirono

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.759
    • http://www.myspace.com/plan9soundsystem
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #46 on: 02-02-2011, 21:28:44 »
Homeland Security Shuts Down ATDHE.net for Illegally Streaming Sporting Events

The jig is up for a popular streaming sports site.
The U.S. government has seized ATDHE.net’s broadcasting domain for illegally streaming live sporting events.

ATDHE provided free access to sporting events and pay-per-view events, sourcing from networks such as ABC, NBC and FOX. Fans needed a place to access live feeds from foreign countries for free, and according to SportsGrid, the site became an alternative to ESPN3, especially during World Cup action in 2010.

One of the first domains to be shut down was Rojadirecta, a Spanish sports streaming website. Like ATDHE, Rojadirecta moved their streaming to a non-U.S. domain.

While still illegal, ATDHE is back up and running for soccer, tennis, volleyball and other international sports.



frka zbog super bowla. :roll:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #47 on: 02-02-2011, 21:59:07 »
Ebre, kad država reaguje na kršenje kopirajta, jasno je ko je tu u čijem džepu.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 29.866
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #48 on: 25-02-2011, 12:53:52 »
Evo, mi volimo da pravdamo pirateriju, pa, evo malo argumenata:

Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web



I jedan tekst od pre dve godine sa Arsteknike:

Study: P2P customers are Hollywood's best friends—really!

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.191
Re: Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv
« Reply #49 on: 25-02-2011, 13:24:36 »
Sto me podseti, sjajan rad Nicka Mailera (najbolji prijatelj Johna Walkera, sa kojim pravi Rum Doings podcast; nesto u rodu pokojnom Normanu Mejleru; vlasnik i osnivac Positive Internet kompanije koja izmejdu ostalog hostuje blog Stivena Fraja):

When Metaphors Attack: How Intellectual Property Frustrates Access to Knowledge in a Networked World
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.

To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.

Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

Ča je vrime vengo pljosnat krug? – Raste Kolović