|
SLOWWWWW....
Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have
not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB |
SLOWWWWW....
In article
, Higgs Boson wrote: Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB In Psych 101 they teach that if you put a reward in a maze, a mouse will learn the maze and find the reward. If you then stop putting the reward at the end of the maze, the mouse will soon stop running the maze. The difference between humans and mice is that humans will run the maze forever, years after the reward is gone. IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet? |
SLOWWWWW....
Smitty Two wrote in :
In article , Higgs Boson wrote: Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB In Psych 101 they teach that if you put a reward in a maze, a mouse will learn the maze and find the reward. If you then stop putting the reward at the end of the maze, the mouse will soon stop running the maze. The difference between humans and mice is that humans will run the maze forever, years after the reward is gone. aka... doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. [Frequently mentioned in a program I became associated with 25yrs ago :-) ] IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet? |
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/30/2011 6:56 PM, Red Green wrote:
Smitty wrote in : In article , Higgs wrote: Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB In Psych 101 they teach that if you put a reward in a maze, a mouse will learn the maze and find the reward. If you then stop putting the reward at the end of the maze, the mouse will soon stop running the maze. The difference between humans and mice is that humans will run the maze forever, years after the reward is gone. aka... doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. [Frequently mentioned in a program I became associated with 25yrs ago :-) ] IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet? Posting through Google appears to be problem. His post is not even there but shows up in eternal-september. He's probably not seeing responses to his last two posts. |
SLOWWWWW....
|
SLOWWWWW....
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message ... Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB I know of at least 25 alternatives to Google Groups, free or low cost. Use one. |
SLOWWWWW....
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ... "Higgs Boson" wrote in message ... Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB I know of at least 25 alternatives to Google Groups, free or low cost. Use one. response to this message was less than 30 seconds. |
SLOWWWWW....
Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? Don't be a lame google-grouper. Use a real usenet client, and point it to a free server, like nntp.aioe.org. PS: How's the weather in LA. Santa Monica? |
SLOWWWWW....
aemeijers wrote:
I'm still waiting for a TS or cam-grab of cowboys and aliens. I expect one will be posted later today. People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with Captcha, and encryption, and copy protection, and all that annoying crap. Not sure how file-lockers are connected to captcha. Encryption and copy-protection has been broken for most (all?) consumer media of any importance. So nothing to "put up with" on that front. It ain't cool, and you ain't a rebel or a kewel pirate. You're a thief. Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. I'm not really stealing anything. When all is said and done, everything is still right it's supposed to be. You do know pirate download sites are one of the prime vectors for malware and botnets and such, right? You're mis-informed. People that post links to music, movies, books, magazines, and software on sites like avaxhome are usually motivated by $$$. (those that aren't are just fanatical about sharing their media library because they're passionate about a particular genre). They get a kick-back from the file-locker sites based on much of their stuff gets downloaded. The file-lockers get revenue from people that sign up for paid access. But they do offer free access but with limitations (most which can be easily circumvented). So the model here is purely financial. There is no motivation to plant malware in the files being offered, and quite the contrary - any detection of malware will be quickly mentioned in the comments. In the several tera-bytes of music, movies and print material (books, etc) that I've downloaded over the past 3 or 4 years that was advertized on avaxhome and sourced from rapidshare, hotfile, fileserve, filesonic (etc etc), not one of them contained malware. I'm not even sure how you'd code malware into mp3, flac, AVI, VOB files. Torrents are another matter. I've seen a lot of junk in torrents, because there really isin't a good feed-back mechanism for most torrents, and the financial motivation for uploading a torrent is different. I don't download too much software. They usually contain keygens by necessity - and some of those are questionable in terms of malware. False-positive detection of keygens as "riskware" is very common. -- aem sends... Sends what? What's aem? |
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/30/2011 5:26 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB Instead of all of the constant "google is not working today" complaints why not just get an account someplace and use a real newsreader? I moved to eternal september after comcast turned off access to save the children. |
SLOWWWWW....
Home Guy writes:
aemeijers wrote: I'm still waiting for a TS or cam-grab of cowboys and aliens. I expect one will be posted later today. People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with Captcha, and encryption, and copy protection, and all that annoying crap. Not sure how file-lockers are connected to captcha. Encryption and copy-protection has been broken for most (all?) consumer media of any importance. So nothing to "put up with" on that front. It ain't cool, and you ain't a rebel or a kewel pirate. You're a thief. Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. Nonsense. Just like the rest of your rationalizations. -- Dan Espen |
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/31/2011 10:24 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. So then who should pay for the non-trivial cost to provide this "free information"? I'm not really stealing anything. When all is said and done, everything is still right it's supposed to be. So if I walk into a book store and walk out with a book without paying that cost money to produce, print and inventory it isn't really stealing because information is free? |
SLOWWWWW....
|
SLOWWWWW....
George wrote:
Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. So then who should pay for the non-trivial cost to provide this "free information"? I've already explained the workings of the current economic model. File-lockers sell time-limited subscriptions to downloaders to fully access their servers. They pay uploaders some cut for the material being downloaded by the paying subscribers. Other downloaders pay nothing for limited or handicapped access to the same files. Every file (ie- every CD, album or movie) available on a file-locker can presumably be traced to a single bought copy at some point in the past (even the distant past). In the case of a theatrical TeleSync or "cam-grab", it can probably be traced to a paying movie-goer (who brought a camera with them). I'm not really stealing anything. When all is said and done, everything is still right it's supposed to be. So if I walk into a book store and walk out with a book without paying If you walk out with a book without paying for the book, then everything is NOT where it's supposed to be, and you've stolen that book. If while in the store you took out your camera and took pictures of every page of the book, then you put the book back on the shelf and walked out of the store, then everything is "right where it's supposed to be" and nothing has been stolen. that cost money to produce, print and inventory it isn't really stealing because information is free? What if you just stood there in the book store and read the book, then put it back on the shelf and walked away? Did you steal the book in that situation? |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
If while in the store you took out your camera and took pictures of every page of the book, then you put the book back on the shelf and walked out of the store, then everything is "right where it's supposed to be" and nothing has been stolen. If you really believe that, you're an idiot. And, you've already confessed on a worldwide medium to being a criminal. |
SLOWWWWW....
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:24:45 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
It ain't cool, and you ain't a rebel or a kewel pirate. You're a thief. Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. I'm not really stealing anything. When all is said and done, everything is still right it's supposed to be. It's your lie, so tell it anyway you want too. |
SLOWWWWW....
|
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/31/2011 11:42 AM, Home Guy wrote:
wrote: Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. Nonsense. Just like the rest of your rationalizations. If you (or others) want to debate the ethics (or the extent of *actual* financial harm) of downloading (aka pirating) copyrighted material, then fine. Let's do that. But I stand by my claim that the vast majority of such material available from file-lockers is 100% free of malware / trojans / virii / exploits. Let me make it simple for you- if you created it, or paid somebody else to create it, you own it and can give it away to your hearts content. If somebody else created it, and all you did was buy a copy, you can sell or give away your copy, ONCE. You own that one copy, not the data itself, unless it has passed into public domain, or you paid the owner/author for republication rights. File-lockers would only be legal if they were solely used as a virtual vanity press by people wanting to get their own words and pictures and sounds out there. If they put stuff created or owned by others out there, without their permission, that constitutes theft of intellectual property. But, go on and have your fun- there are plenty of hungry lawyers out there, working for the industry trade associations. I'd imagine some of them have summer-intern geeks monitoring Usenet and the various internet chat sites. And you have hung a big target on yourself. -- aem sends... |
SLOWWWWW....
"Smitty Two" wrote in message ... In article , Higgs Boson wrote: Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB In Psych 101 they teach that if you put a reward in a maze, a mouse will learn the maze and find the reward. If you then stop putting the reward at the end of the maze, the mouse will soon stop running the maze. The difference between humans and mice is that humans will run the maze forever, years after the reward is gone. IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet? The Google thing is more user friendly. The threads are easier to follow. It's not working in the UK this last three days either.. |
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/31/2011 12:07 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In , Home wrote: If while in the store you took out your camera and took pictures of every page of the book, then you put the book back on the shelf and walked out of the store, then everything is "right where it's supposed to be" and nothing has been stolen. If you really believe that, you're an idiot. And, you've already confessed on a worldwide medium to being a criminal. It is pretty unlikely that you can reason with someone who has a liberal entitlement mentality. |
SLOWWWWW....
aemeijers wrote:
But, go on and have your fun- there are plenty of hungry lawyers out there, working for the industry trade associations. I'd imagine some of them have summer-intern geeks monitoring Usenet and the various internet chat sites. And you have hung a big target on yourself. Oh, wait. Let me reach for a kleenex. I'm laughing so hard I have to wipe my eyes. Ok. that's better. I see that I'm either dealing with a bunch of bleeding hearts that work for the music or movie industry, or a bunch of old pharts that don't understand how untouchable you can be in some corners of the internet. I'd imagine some of them have summer-intern geeks monitoring Usenet That one made me spit a gut I laughed so hard. Nobody under 35 knows what usenet is. And if you've paid attention at all to the legal workings of the MPAA/RIAA when it comes to the internet, you would know that simply saying that you're a downloader doesn't get you on their radar. The best they can do is monitor torrents and look at who's uploading. It's the uploaders they go after (and when you're using bit torrent, you're both a downloader and uploader). When you're downloading from file lockers or from binary newsgroups, they can't touch you because they simply don't have access to the server's log files to know anything about those activities. And if you knew anything at all about looking at usenet headers, you'd see that nobody can ever identify me because my IP address is not visible (that's not always the case - it depends on what usenet server you're using). Hey, watch this: Who want's the movie Captain America? Here you go - go get it: http://www.filesonic.com/folder/8535471 http://www.wupload.com/folder/236737 http://fileserve.com/list/zJb4gYj Each of those file-lockers are hosting the 3 files that you de-compress to get the movie. The 3 files a Captain.America.2011.CAM.part1.rar Captain.America.2011.CAM.part2.rar Captain.America.2011.CAM.part3.rar You don't need an account to download those files. Just use the "free" or "slow" option and answer the captch. Each of those is about 300 mb in size. When de-compressed (I use winrar, but winzip will also work I think) you'lll get the file: Captain.America.2011.avi which is about 820 mb in size. Here's where I got all this from: http://avaxhome.ws/video/genre/actio..._2011_CAM.html Enjoy. |
SLOWWWWW....
Higgs Boson wrote:
Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB The reason I finally got a backup, or primary. Google tends to be easier for me on the iPad. Greg |
SLOWWWWW....
harryagain wrote:
The Google thing is more user friendly. The threads are easier to follow. It's not working in the UK this last three days either.. User friendly with posts running days behind? I don't think so. Your point about threads being easier to follow is a good one. I use Outlook Express augmented by "OE-QuoteFix." The later civilizes and colorizes the threads. |
SLOWWWWW....
George wrote:
On 7/30/2011 5:26 PM, Higgs Boson wrote: Google must be taking one of its naps. Several messages of mine have not appeared after days. Anybody else? HB Instead of all of the constant "google is not working today" complaints why not just get an account someplace and use a real newsreader? I moved to eternal september after comcast turned off access to save the children. In my case, Comcast provides the pipe, but my ISP is Earthlink. Earthlink provides Giganews for free. |
SLOWWWWW....
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:19:14 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote: IOW, why the **** are you still using a web browser to read usenet? The Google thing is more user friendly. Says Who? The threads are easier to follow. Who said that?! It's not working in the UK this last three days either.. Strike Two. Because you are a nym-shifter, beating filters AND your last fault is being a subject of the Queen. You _uphill gardener_ limey! |
SLOWWWWW....
Home Guy writes:
wrote: Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. Nonsense. Just like the rest of your rationalizations. If you (or others) want to debate the ethics (or the extent of *actual* financial harm) of downloading (aka pirating) copyrighted material, then fine. Let's do that. I think it's pretty clear you know it's not ethical. The idea that it's a small amount of harm doesn't change the nature of the act. The way you are rationalizing this, it's clear you are of the conservative ilk. (Hey, does that sound just as asinine as the guys accusing you of being a liberal?) -- Dan Espen |
SLOWWWWW....
wrote:
I think it's pretty clear you know it's not ethical. I downloaded the movie "Cowboys and Aliens" about 2 hours ago. You can get it here if you like: http://www.filesonic.com/folder/9087931 I copied it to my Netgear media player, which is connected to my TV, and I just watched 1/2 the movie in the comfort of my den. It's a really stupid movie. I can't make out about 1/3 of the movie because of the darkly-lit scenes. But that's not really the point. The point is, I was never going to see this in a movie theater. There are no ethics involved here. I downloaded it out of curiosity, almost snoozed through most of what I saw, got bored with the rest, and turned my TV off. The idea that it's a small amount of harm doesn't change the nature of the act. And just what is the nature of the act? The garbage being produced these days (the movies, the music) isin't worth 2 cents. The way you are rationalizing this, it's clear you are of the conservative ilk. (Hey, does that sound just as asinine as the guys accusing you of being a liberal?) You americans are eating yourselves up with your conservative vs liberal bull****. You're going to hell as a country and all you can do is call each other names. How far you have fallen as a country. I feel ashamed for you. |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
And just what is the nature of the act? theft of service, copyright violations would be the first that come to mind. In addition I would suspect that certain individuals get residuals which you have also deprived them from receiving. The garbage being produced these days (the movies, the music) isin't worth 2 cents. so if you decide it's crap then it's alright to steal it? How often do you do this at your crappy restaurant? |
SLOWWWWW....
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:34:44 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote: so if you decide it's crap then it's alright to steal it? How often do you do this at your crappy restaurant? People of inferior intellect cannot conceive of a concept like intellectual property. The anonymity of the web has fractured the 10-80-10 rule of crime: 10% of the population would never commit a crime. 80% of the population is opportunistic, meaning that if the value behind the crime is high enough and the risk of being caught low, they would commit a crime. 10% of the population would always commit crime, no matter what. The stingers for me are, I have no way to sufficiently document thefts of my intellectual property and can't even claim them as a loss, and can't write off having a buckskin belly and leather asshole installed. ----- - gpsman |
SLOWWWWW....
Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
And just what is the nature of the act? theft of service, copyright violations would be the first that come to mind. I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it. Technically, whoever did the recording and then made it available for download is the one who violated any applicable copyright agreement or law. In addition I would suspect that certain individuals get residuals which you have also deprived them from receiving. No they wouldn't, because I wouldn't have gone to see this in a movie theater anyways. The garbage being produced these days (the movies, the music) isin't worth 2 cents. so if you decide it's crap then it's alright to steal it? I haven't stolen it. The physical movie is still right where it always was - on the projector in the movie theater. How often do you do this at your crappy restaurant? Are you incapable of understanding the difference between a virtual electronic "product" (music, movie) vs a real physical object (food in your example). ? |
SLOWWWWW....
gpsman wrote:
People of inferior intellect cannot conceive of a concept like intellectual property. I'm a co-author on about 9 patents. So yes I can conceive of the concept of intellectual property. I have no problems if anyone takes my intellectual property and uses it for themselves, for their own use. Just as I download music and movies and use it for my own use. I don't turn around and burn the material onto a disk and try to sell it. See the difference? Movies and music should be treated like patents. It's all intellectual property. You get to profit from it for a set period of time, after which it becomes public domain. That's the bargain you have with society. The anonymity of the web has fractured the 10-80-10 rule of crime: There is no crime. If you're in the business of making something that can be replicated / copied / re-transmitted with ease, then don't blame society for doing those things. Instead you'd better figure out a way to deliver your product so it can be delivered and consumed without being copied and shared by the consumer. The stingers for me are, I have no way to sufficiently document thefts of my intellectual property and can't even claim them as a loss That's the fallacy of most pirating arguments - the claim that every copy or every incidence of sharing represents exactly 1 lost sale. |
SLOWWWWW....
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:16:09 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
gpsman wrote: People of inferior intellect cannot conceive of a concept like intellectual property. I'm a co-author on about 9 patents. So yes I can conceive of the concept of intellectual property. You'd be "co-owner", Sparky. I have no problems if anyone takes my intellectual property and uses it for themselves, for their own use. Right. Because your intellectual property is imaginary. Just as I download music and movies and use it for my own use. I don't turn around and burn the material onto a disk and try to sell it. See the difference? I think so. You think you're "just" a thief. If it's not theft to download material for your own use, what's wrong with burning it for others for their own use...? Movies and music should be treated like patents. It's all intellectual property. You get to profit from it for a set period of time, after which it becomes public domain. That's the bargain you have with society. Copyright is not perpetual. Obviously you have a deep understanding of intellectual property. The anonymity of the web has fractured the 10-80-10 rule of crime: There is no crime. If you're in the business of making something that can be replicated / copied / re-transmitted with ease, then don't blame society for doing those things. Instead you'd better figure out a way to deliver your product so it can be delivered and consumed without being copied and shared by the consumer. Right. Owners are responsible for theft of their property, not thieves. The epitome of irony is that the thief is considered the criminal. The stingers for me are, I have no way to sufficiently document thefts of my intellectual property and can't even claim them as a loss That's the fallacy of most pirating arguments - the claim that every copy or every incidence of sharing represents exactly 1 lost sale. Straw man. My property is the basis of the product of -all- my competitors. ----- - gpsman |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it. Like holy ****ing hell you aren't. Be a criminal if you want to, but don't sit there and pretend you aren't one. |
SLOWWWWW....
On 7/31/2011 11:58 AM, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote: Information wants to be free. Music and movies are a form of information. So then who should pay for the non-trivial cost to provide this "free information"? I've already explained the workings of the current economic model. File-lockers sell time-limited subscriptions to downloaders to fully access their servers. They pay uploaders some cut for the material being downloaded by the paying subscribers. Other downloaders pay nothing for limited or handicapped access to the same files. But I don't understand this at all. If information is free as you claim why would someone need to pay for a subscription to steal content? Every file (ie- every CD, album or movie) available on a file-locker can presumably be traced to a single bought copy at some point in the past (even the distant past). In the case of a theatrical TeleSync or "cam-grab", it can probably be traced to a paying movie-goer (who brought a camera with them). Yes, that one person purchased the right to use the content for themselves. They did not obtain the right to copy and distribute the work. I'm not really stealing anything. When all is said and done, everything is still right it's supposed to be. So if I walk into a book store and walk out with a book without paying If you walk out with a book without paying for the book, then everything is NOT where it's supposed to be, and you've stolen that book. If while in the store you took out your camera and took pictures of every page of the book, then you put the book back on the shelf and walked out of the store, then everything is "right where it's supposed to be" and nothing has been stolen. So you have a medical problem and you go to your doctor. After some extensive tests and consultation you are called in to hear the diagnosis. Would it be OK if you simply took out your camera and snapped a copy of the report that the doc had on his desk and said "thanks, information is free so I feel no need to pay you"? that cost money to produce, print and inventory it isn't really stealing because information is free? What if you just stood there in the book store and read the book, then put it back on the shelf and walked away? Did you steal the book in that situation? |
SLOWWWWW....
gpsman wrote:
If you're in the business of making something that can be replicated / copied / re-transmitted with ease, then don't blame society for doing those things. Instead you'd better figure out a way to deliver your product so it can be delivered and consumed without being copied and shared by the consumer. Right. Owners are responsible for theft of their property, I never said that. Technically, owners are not responsible for anything. There's no law that compels copyright owners to do any specific thing. From a business or economic pov, copyright owners should consider the ease of reproduction and re-transmission of their property when they undertake to create, show, sell or distribute the property. These same arguments were made regarding the photo-copier, the cassette tape, and the VHS recorder. The publishing, music, TV and movie industry wanted to shackle, regulate, limit, even criminalize society's use of those devices. In the end, the sky didn't fall, and those industries went on to become even more profitable than before. That's the fallacy of most pirating arguments - the claim that every copy or every incidence of sharing represents exactly 1 lost sale. Straw man. No, it's the fundamental practical consideration to determine the scale of the true financial loss to the copyright owner. My property is the basis of the product of -all- my competitors. I have no idea what that sentence means. And why does it always have to be about you? |
SLOWWWWW....
Smitty Two wrote:
I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it. Like holy ****ing hell you aren't. Be a criminal if you want to, but don't sit there and pretend you aren't one. I see that the mpaa and riaa has suceeded in brainwashing you so that your understanding of this situation is sufficiently muddled. In every copying or sharing situation, there is the party that has copied or made the "item" available, and there is the party that receives the "item". (the item being a copyrighted work of some sort) When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent. When you go and download a copyrighted work from a file-locker server, you're the receiver of the work. Copyright laws don't address or apply to you. Those laws do apply to the server hosting the work (see DMCA take-down notice) and they do apply to the person who put the work on the server. |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Technically, owners are not responsible for anything. There's no law that compels copyright owners to do any specific thing. Of course they are. It is their responsibility to protect their copyright. If they allow you to violate their copyright, they may in fact forfeit their copyright. |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote: And just what is the nature of the act? theft of service, copyright violations would be the first that come to mind. I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it. but you are violating the copyright by not paying to acquire and/or view it Technically, whoever did the recording and then made it available for download is the one who violated any applicable copyright agreement or law. and you knowingly acquiring a copy of this material, no matter what the media, makes you an accessory to that crime In addition I would suspect that certain individuals get residuals which you have also deprived them from receiving. No they wouldn't, because I wouldn't have gone to see this in a movie theater anyways. The fact that you acquired this movie puts the lie to this statement The garbage being produced these days (the movies, the music) isin't worth 2 cents. so if you decide it's crap then it's alright to steal it? I haven't stolen it. It's a product that someone spent time and money to produce. You have it with neither the permission of the copyright holder or its assignee, therefore you have possession of stolen property The physical movie is still right where it always was - on the projector in the movie theater. How often do you do this at your crappy restaurant? Are you incapable of understanding the difference between a virtual electronic "product" (music, movie) vs a real physical object (food in your example). ? I was trying to dumb it down enough for you to understand. It seems that you don't understand that copyright covers the concept as well as the media |
SLOWWWWW....
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: I'm not violating any copyright by acquiring and/or viewing it. Like holy ****ing hell you aren't. Be a criminal if you want to, but don't sit there and pretend you aren't one. I see that the mpaa and riaa has suceeded in brainwashing you so that your understanding of this situation is sufficiently muddled. In every copying or sharing situation, there is the party that has copied or made the "item" available, and there is the party that receives the "item". (the item being a copyrighted work of some sort) When it comes to the receiving party, copyright laws are silent. but there are laws about receiving stolen property When you go and download a copyrighted work from a file-locker server, you're the receiver of the work. Copyright laws don't address or apply to you. Those laws do apply to the server hosting the work (see DMCA take-down notice) and they do apply to the person who put the work on the server. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter