What is Digg?137 Comments
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+171Usually when you test software you put it on your development server, not your live site.
- chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -6/+161They may be bastards for other things, but this is great.
Now they have supplied everyone with a legitimate defense. If its good enough for them, its good enough for the everyman, right? - niradg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+152i'm only testing this movie
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+87Putting something into production (live, on the web) is not the same as testing.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+81I hope the makers of that software sue the MPAA for $250,000 per article.
- jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76wow. and they call me a pirate
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+75Same here and I'm only testing to see if it will burn onto DVD and play on my DVD player... and now I'm testing to see how much people will pay for these movies ;-).
- trump48257, on 10/12/2007, -3/+74Burn them! (assuming they weigh the same as a duck).
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+66@thebarge
So, can I pirate any movie that costs less than 25 pounds? I can afford it, so it's probably just an oversight when I don't pay for it. When I get caught I'll destroy my copy of the movie to prove that I wasn't really trying to pirate it.
The point is that the MPAA is adamantly in favor of respecting copyrights, as evidenced by their fight against piracy, and yet this software is copyrighted by its author and linkware or not, they pirated it. This tells me they're hypocrites who only respect the copyrights of the music labels they represent. - mastershake1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61And given that the MPAA and RIAA want "making available" copyrighted material to be considered infringement, does it matter under that test whether they were testing or not?
- Sparkster185, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60You're an idiot.
- thekidder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53If they were "just testing", why did they bother to remove the copyright statement and link-back?
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47@ fatdog789
"Quite ironically, when the MPAA does what the pirates do, everyone throws a hissy fit."
It's because of the hypocrisy. Why is that Ironic? - rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45Sue their fat asses
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+55basically, you can claim all the excuses we use if you are a huge corporation or institution. God bless America, land of the 2nd set of laws for the rich.
- tcquad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Coincidentally, I have used this excuse. My on-campus network connection was acting buggy, cutting in and out during the day. To get it to work again, I had to unplug the Ethernet connection, wait a second and then replug the connection. I wanted to know if it was happening overnight and if would reconnect if it wasn't unplugged. To test, I grabbed the first large, seeded .torrent from SuprNova (a DVD-sized rip of a movie) and let it run overnight, checking the logs to see if there were connection issues. Two days of surprisingly consistent internet access later, I get a cease and desist from the Office of Information Technologies stating that I was busted for copyright infringement and had to go see the big shots over at administration. I explained, they said to delete and if I ever did it again, I'd be punished, etc. And to call OIT directly and let them do the tech support.
So, the excuse actually did work, at least for on-campus violations. - CAPSLOCKISCOOL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37I'm going to charge people to watch pirated movies:
- I won't give out the name of the movie I'm showing
- The theater wont have a name
- I wont advertise it in any way
- The theater is a proof in concept awaited approval
- It for testing purposes only
- Should I decide to use a real theater, I will pay the fees needed - Justinsb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36Yep, it's a pretty easy transition:
No Web links were ever provided to the movie.
The movie was never assigned a domain name.
The movie was never advertised to the public in any way (at least not by me).
The movie on my server was a proof of concept awaiting approval (from my wife) to be added to our collection.
The movie was only ever used for testing purposes.
Should we have decided to make the move to our movie library, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the movie but with the logos because there is just no getting around that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33You do realize who the MPAA are right?
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36are you really that *****-in-the-head? or are you just joking?
- PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36usually when I pirate movies, I watch it on my laptop, not on a live server. So I'm okay.
- Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Ok, so they claim they were testing it.
Let a civil court decide if they're right.
While we're at it, let's use the same arguments against suing file sharers in this case. Surely there are no inconsistencies, are there? - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I think we are assuming that you paid for your shirt and underware, therefore your example does not apply to this situation.
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Should I test their movies?
- kiljoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24This coming from someone who can't work a "reply" button?
- NoSuchAgency, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24LOL, you all don't get it. See, there's one set of laws for Us, and one set for Them. Or rather, the same set of laws, but two widely different abilities to enforce them. It's that simple. They can use his software any way they like, because he can't afford to take them to court - no matter what linkbacks or copyright statements they removed. We can't "test" their movies, because they CAN afford to take us to court. Hell, we can't even afford to defend ourselves against them even if we DIDN'T share any movies.
- Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22i tested apocolypto 4 times last week. that was just preliminary testing, i will finish my report over the next 7 to 10 years and then ill let everyone know if it passed.
- DietMountainDew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Everyone go to:
http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp
And fill out another piracy report. Here is what I put:
* No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
How did Patrick Access it then?
* The blog was never assigned a domain name.
So "mpaa.org" isn't a 'domain name'?
* The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
Again, how did Patrick find it?
* The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
Yes, it was, if it is accessible to the public that is called 'production'. You should have tested it internally on an intranet.
* The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
Can I test a movie?
* Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.
Just pay the 25 pounds, god knows you have enough money.
--
Rinse, back, enter, and repeat. - Namarrgon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Indeed. And "testing" doesn't normally entail "deliberately stripping out all copyright notices and attributions" either.
The MPAA are so full of it. But what do you expect from a group that have been ignoring copyright & patent laws since their very beginnings?
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1481908&lastnode_id=0 - alrahman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I am also only testing how large a collection of films my external hard drive can hold. I dont plan to advertise them, and no one will get links to them :P
- TheTap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17If they really were "just testing", there would be no reason to remove the links and credits. Removing the copyright info and links back is a production move, not a testing move.
Basically, they stripped out the blog's DRM' for 'testing'.
Sorry, I don't buy it. - DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15The best possible scenario is that they are sued for this but they win.
Then next time they take someone to court the lawyer can use their case to show precedence that it is ok to test movies. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15A random Movie Pirate:
I was only testing _____ if it was any good I would have payed for it - logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17bless you sweet sweet python fan
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@newdiggdude
Hanes' clothing policy doesn't say you have to keep the tags on.
This guy's blog software license said that you DID have to keep links to him.
Moron. - DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14What does your comment have to do with the MPAA pirating software for production work and claim they were testing it?
As a side note:
Where are you getting your figures from? What about the thousands of jobs that are created when the money people didn't spend on the media they "pirated" is spent elsewhere? Does that money just magically disappear to another dimension where it does not enter the economy? If you don't buy a movie do you instead burn the money you would've have spent so no one else can have it?
The argument that piracy is costing thousands of jobs is a ***** one. It's just a redistribution of funds to another segment of the economy. Do you really think there's a shortage of workers in the movie/music industry? Hell, I bet there'd be at least 5 million people that would want to be in a movie in place of some A-list star and be more than happy to do it for a fraction of the salary the star demands.
The real problem is that John Q. Media-Studio-Exec decides that he needs another yacht, and while sales are down (maybe marginally due to piracy but more likely due to the ***** his company released) he fires the person making $10 an hour, so he can keep his $1,000+ hour/day income.
Until the owner of Paramount, BMI, Sony Entertainment, etc. clears less than $100,000 a year total (this includes stock, perks, etc) I refuse to believe that piracy is hurting the industry at the levels that are being claimed.
I'm not promoting piracy, I am not defending piracy, but at the same time I'm not about to believe a single word from anyone with a vested interest in stopping piracy about the ills of it. These people claim that every single instance of a "copy" or "partial 1-byte download" is a lost sale at full retail value. They can all go ***** themselves for all I care. - Azselendor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14To the MPAA:
Liar, Lair, Pants of Fire
hang them up on telephone wire - PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11m3mn0n says "People will say or do anything to bash the MPAA and try to justify downloading for free. heh"
Not exactly. I don't download movies. Mostly because there aren't any worth downloading. However, I am entitled to criticize a trade association for holding a double-standard.
They have pushed for legislation that holds a "zero tolerance" stance against any form of "piracy", yet they feel it is okay to circumvent the protections placed on another person's intellectual property, because they INTENDED to pay if they DECIDED to use it.
Let's not forget, if they paid for it, the author would send them a version of the code that disabled the link and image. They chose to actually remove something pertaining to his copyright with "the intention" of paying if they liked what they saw. Many people will download a lesser-quality version of a movie to watch it, and if they actually enjoy the movie and want to see it in better quality, they will go out and buy a hard copy. Yet the MPAA will hear none of that when it comes to someone infringing THEIR intellectual property rights. Plus, they lobby the hell out of congress to manipulate intellectual property law in their favor.
I walked by the MPAA building on 16th and I st. tonight on my way to my parking garage. The prick who owns the black lexus with "MPAA1" on his maryland tags that insists on parking so he blocks the sidewalk is going to find a nice thick, gooey lung cookie on the hood of his car tonight :) - enkafan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So, is there any mention of actually suing them? I'd pitch in twenty bucks towards getting a lawyer and seeing how much of that $250,000 he could get out of them. I just hope the irony isn't lost on the MPAA...
- PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13But see, they are a very large non-profit association. They have special privileges under our "equal justice for all" system. They can do whatever they want, and we have to whatever they tell us.
This is the america we allowed to evolve around us, so just deal with it. - PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, see, in this case, they want you to pay first, then decide whether you got ripped off or not. AND NO REFUNDS!!!
Definitely egocentric -- "we should be able to test something before we pay for and use it" while on the other side of their mouths they say "Pay first, pay now and pay always, or else you will pay!" - nikkon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So where is this place where I can rent a movie and not pay if I decide it sucks?
No, it is not "freely available". It is a copyrighted work which requires leaving in the links (through which the author could get revenue indirectly) or paying a fee.
How you don't see this as a hypocritical copyright violation is beyond me. - Justinsb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sometimes I test my internet connection by seeing how long it takes to download a movie - solely for testing purposes though
- PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yep. Profitacracy at it's best!
- JustinGN, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Are you that ***** retarded? How is billions of dollars lost to movie piracy when they go right around and announce yet ANOTHER record-breaking box office release? Your "facts" don't hold water there, pal.
As for DRM? Region Coding wasn't designed to prevent piracy, it was designed to create markets. Same with DRM; DRM isn't to protect music, it's to increase the profits of those whose content is DRM'd in the first place. Think about it; if I buy music on iTunes, but then a few years later get a Creative Zen instead, I'd have to rebuy ALL of my iTunes music since cracking DRM is apparently illegal. It's all about milking consumers for those few precious dollars.
I buy my DVD's, but I also download theatre releases. Why? Because if I go to the theatre, they flash ads for 30 minutes before the movie, rape me on candy and soda, etc, despite turning over profits. "But it's the experience!" I hear you say! Well, why the ***** would I spend $20 on a single goddamn movie at a theatre when I can wait a few months and get a DVD/HD release for roughly the same price or cheaper? If the experience was cheaper or didn't involve shoving ads down my throat, that'd be one thing. But they just keep inventing ways to sucker us out of every last hard-earned retail-hell cent I've got. I say ***** them.
It's all about the money, and I refuse to give up any more of my money than I have to. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14@newdiggdude
Firstly, no it's not copyright infringement...
Secondly, ewwwww.....
Thirdly... ***** moron. - PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Me too. If I decide that I want to own the movie, I'll just pay the 25 pounds that would have authorized me to own a legal copy. If not, I'll delete it.
- radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When I download a movie via BitTorrent, I'm only testing it too. The overwhelming majority are not worth purchasing.
- Depthfunction, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@newdiggdude
If you rip all the tags, how do you know which wash cycle to use?
Or does your mom do your laundry for you? - PhilLesh69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The type of people that are going to nit-pick and chase down some 13 year old for downloading one of "their movies" are the same type of people that will do everything they can to cheat everyone else. It's all part of the mindset behind their entire "anti-piracy" campaign -- What's their's is their's. What's your's needs to be their's. Since they will cheat and lie and steal, they assume everyone else is out to do the same thing to them.
Greedy, Covetous bastards! -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is