While searching for a place I might possibly watch past episodes of the show “Heroes” I found this site advertised in my search results: http://tvshowscentral.org I took a look at it and it looks pretty slick - Is this site legitimate? I’m worried about downloading a virus from a site that looks real but is just a front.
The site sounds almost too good to be true and their FAQ doesn’t really tell you much. It mentions file sharing so I’m wondering if they’re operating illegally.
From the bottom of the page:
Note that they don’t tell you if it’s legal or not until you purchase a membership. BIG red flag right there.
Practically any site that says P2P will be sharing copyrighted, and therefore illegal files.
Run away. Run away fast.
Well, walk away slowly.
If you know it is illegal, and they want you to pay, then run.
However, a site like “Napster” was illegal once-opon-a-time. but now charges $! a d/l plus monthly fees, and they are totally legetimate. Sure, if they don’t tell you until you give them a number, you should run. But don’t be paranoid. Use this site like you would any other…as a guide, not advice written in stone.
Oh, you mean like the SDMB and every other website on the planet? The SDMB must be in deep shit, distributing copyrighted, and therefore illegal, information like it is day in and day out. I guess I’d better sever all ties between myself and this hotbed of copyrighted, and therefore illegal, files. In fact, nuking my TV and radio would be a good option, as they are constantly receiving copyrighted, and therefore illegal, information whether or not they are turned on or even plugged in! Copyrighted, and therefore illegal, information will be the downfall of society!
Would you like to explain the concept of a license, or should I?
Yes. Please explain the illegal similarity in reading a conversation from a message board and downloading and saving a copy of “Friends Season 2 DVD” from a P2P site. I’d be interested in hearing that.
I’m tempted to move this to Great Debates, but let’s see how this plays out for a while.
You cannot be seriously asking for the difference between a text-based message board and a video/audio site, can you? You would have to be dumber-than-the-average-doper, and I meant that as a board insult!
<mod>
** OFFICIAL MOD WARNING **
scottkris, personal insults are not allowed in GQ. This is not the Pit.
Don’t do it again.
</mod>
Rico, scottkris: You’ve both misinterpreted my post. I was jumping on that specific phrase I put in quote tags, as it explicitly states that all copyrighted material is illegal to copy from computer to computer. The VAST majority of information on the Internet, now and in the past and well on into the foreseeable future, is copyrighted by someone, most often the author unless the author has entered into a legal agreement assigning the copyright to someone else.
A lot of information online isn’t under a license, which means copying it around is limited by whatever copyright laws various judges think are in force at the moment. (Jurisdiction is bound to be a mess when computers in Saudi Arabia can link to computers in Russia via computers in Bolivia, Taiwan, and Micronesia.) In America, the author has the right to distribute his work but nobody else does (in the absence of a license) unless the redistribution is part of a parody or a scholarly commentary or some other possible categories of work. Google’s massive Usenet archives seem to be copacetic with everyone, so apparently archiving is a reasonable use of copyrighted material you don’t own. So is the normal copying between computers that is the very foundation of the Internet (from server to router to backbone routed and so on). Licenses change everything, but AFAIK don’t grant the copyright holder any new rights under the law. Non-Disclosure Agreements are another category of “change everything”, as they are contracts and therefore fall under contract law.
So copying copyrighted stuff is far from always being illegal. Hence my post.
A Brief Intro to Copyright.
25 Copyright Myths and Misconceptions.
US Code Title 17
Just to make it completely clear (hopefully):
The post I’m composing right now, that will be submitted when I preview, then click post (edit function? I don’t need no edit function), is copyrighted. To me. As soon as I click send and it’s saved. Pretty cool, huh?
If I came up with the coolest short story ever, and posted it, it would be copyrighted to me. The Straight Dope, however, could serve up MY copyrighted post to whoever clicked on the link, and I couldn’t say a thing. If another member copied my post and distributed off of the board, I could try to claim a copyright violation. Since the membership agreement I’m subject to allows me to retain the copyright to my work, but gives the Reader license to repost it, the entire content of the Straight Dope Message board is copyrighted [del]and therefore illegal[/del] by the original posters, but legally licensed to be displayed by the Chicago Reader.
It is, believe it or not, sometimes perfectly legal to distribute work you don’t hold the copyright to.
As far as the site in the OP goes, the FAQ gives me the impression that becoming a member takes you to a page which lets you download different software that lets you access the various P2P networks – possibly ones which you could access for free to begin with.
Garfield226: You almost have it. From the bottom of this webpage:
So if the Chicago Reader undergoes a large change in management and becomes Invisible Corporation, Invisible Corporation would have the same ability to re-use your posts the Chicago Reader now enjoys. Invisible Corporation could then assign those rights to Amalgamated, Incorporated or Frustrated LLC or whoever else it wants, giving them the right to re-use your posting however they want. The rest of the quoted material is covered by your post.