She/he has about 40 other posts in various other threads, so I’m guessing not.
Well, they’ve got to do something every now and then if they don’t want their funds to dry up.
ETA: In response to MOIDALIZE.
As Uncle Duke once said, “What would John Delorean do?”
I gotta a “Reported Attack Page” for THIS thread page. Sounds like Doper ad malware at work again. Fucking scumbags (the malware guys, not the Dope.)
I think this was done by the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) division of the Department of Homeland Security. I assume that the Customs part of the agency is the one that’s interested in this sort of thing.
You’re correct. I found a news story about it over at PC World, posted today. From the link:
It’s no great loss, the people will just move the server to a friendly country like Sweden or Ukraine. It happens all the time, how many times has What.CD moved and it’s still around. And if it goes the way of Oink, another site will take its place
And then there’s the Russian, Chinese and Iranian sites…
Sorry, it isn’t stealing. As pointed out millions of times, stealing requires that the person being stole from is actually losing something. And, as pointed out millions of times, that is not the case.
It’s been proven time and time again that companies don’t lose money from having their shows available online. The smart companies leave it alone. The stupid ones are doing rather poorly.
And that’s not getting into the fact that timeshifting is 100% legal. I could have recorded every show myself. What’s the difference if I watch the show online? I’m still paying for the show if I have cable, and if I don’t, then I wouldn’t have watched the show anyways. No one is out any money. The companies are just upset that they aren’t in 100% control. Boo hoo.
I find the snark on this board to be more immoral than that–as at least no one who watches TV online is trying to hurt someone.
And, as has been pointed out millions of times, it is exactly the case. If you download the file, you haven’t bought it. That’s lost income. Maybe you wouldn’t have watched the show otherwise, but many would have, and you do not have the right to decide whether what you’re doing it good or bad for the artist.
For TV, that means lost income in the form of ads. Ads support the show, and without monetary support, there is no show to download.
And the artist who created the work. What about them? If you like a musician, shouldn’t you respect his wishes? If the musician says “no” (by copyrighting the work), what right do you have to overrule that? Other than convenience coupled with arrogance, I mean.
Same with a TV show. If you respect the work, why don’t you respect their rights to decide if they want to let people see that work for free? What gives you the right to overrule their wishes? Because you can? Might makes right, then?
Even if it were true that putting out art to download always helps the artist (and I’d love to see some facts and figures on that), isn’t it the artist’s right to decide for himself? Even if it’s exactly the wrong thing to do, what gives you the right to force him to do it if he doesn’t want to?
You know this? You know exactly how the downloads affect the TV show’s bottom line? Really? Where do you get the information? Could you quote cite the figures as to how it hurt or helped?
Why are you more important than the artist who created the work?
No.
Freedom of information is more important than the wishes of any artist.
I do not necessarily respect the wishes of an artist with regard to his or her work. If an artist doesn’t want people to obtain their work (either by not offering it or charging absurd prices) I do not respect that.
Having said that, I don’t think the process of legally watching tv shows is difficult enough to justify doing it illegally for most people. And I realize that, in practice, it is impossible to allow only what I would call “moral” stealing.
By the way, I am an artist myself, and can easily see how this moral standard could hurt me in the future. But it is what I really believe.
There is a word missing from the english language.
For that state between “stolen” and “shared”.
I don’t need to add anything there. You’ve admitted it yourself, an illegal download is not necessarily a lost sale as many (MANY!) of those that downloaded it would not have bought it.
So any attempt to claim that downloading is stealing because you haven’t bought it and thus a sale was lost is doomed to failure.
It really was quite amusing to see you disprove your claim in the very next sentence.
“stared” is taken so I pick “sholen”.
If I’m following your logic here if I take an apple from the store without paying for it, it’s not stealing as long as I wouldn’t have bought it if I hadn’t been able to steal it.
Am I misreading that somehow?
What then, is the difference between downloading and watching a show without ads, and recording a show on DVR (which I do for just about all prime time shows I watch) and fast forwarding through every ad?
That analogy would only be correct if you had a machine that created copies of apples and then you took the copies out of the store.
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I believe the main argument is that, unlike an apple, there is no physical product being taken from the networks. If you take an apple from a vendor that you did not intend to buy anyway, the vendor is still out the cost of the apple because the apple is no longer there for another shopper to purchase.
If you illegally watch a show you wouldn’t have watched anyway, it doesn’t stop the show from being viewed legally by anyone else - hence, there is no “loss” of product, no loss of potential revenue, because you, as someone who wouldn’t have watched it otherwise, could not be counted as revenue. Those who would have still can, and hence, the revenue potential is undiminished by the activity of those watching it illegally. In fact, some argue that allowing illegal watching of broadcasts allows for greater exposure, and the likelihood of greater revenue, but I am not going to touch that argument.
I thought of that and was going to include a part about supermarkets having to throw away a certain amount of produce anyway and as long as what was stolen didn’t exceed that than they didn’t really have a loss anyway, but decided to start simple.
Czarcasm:
I’d miss my sword fights very much.
That’s why comparisons to physical objects and actual “stealing” is so silly. There is nothing comparable to products that have unlimited shelf life, unlimited supply, and - in the case of illegally hosted material - no continued maintenance/storage costs to the seller.
BTW, this is tvshack’s second site they’ve lost to the government. They had a .net URL previously.