In the alternative universe Damian lives in, the laws have had no or limited effect on stopping piracy. So putting up stronger laws is pointless. :upsidedow

In the real world where the rest of us live we can see the fear from pirates of these laws coming into being. So are they scared of laws that will have more effect, less effect or make no difference?

Common sense answers only.

In the real world we see many companies going after the pirates in a big way. And winning time and time again.

Internet piracy cases. Just one 2 minute look at Google shows a few of the successes. Increasing laws and penalties will have more effects on pirates. Which is why Damian, GG and others are worried.

The pirates like the ability to share others work for free or even to profit from it. And clearly hate the idea of anything to stop them. They lie to make their cases sound sensible.

A clear lie, proven to be a lie.

They haven't worked well enough. Does not mean they haven't worked. Well not in the real world.

Post proof old man. Before you were insinuating. Now you've come out and accused me of a crime.

Where have I ever said that?

Paul, love, I know you are old, stupid and fantasise about things that most of us think are disgustingly wrong (teacher), please stop lying about me.

Your nuisance calls might stop if you do. LOL!

I asked for clarification about how you were proposing the things you suggested got done. Obviously there has to be a technical solution. Explain that to me, and then we can carry on.

LOL at you failing to explain DNS though. Funny little fucker. :D

Fair enough. Seeing as there has not been a single post here in this thread by an actual piracy supporter (maybe Frank21, but fuck him) but only by those who see the current market climate for what it is, I'd like to suggest 'realist' as the preferred nomenclature.

In my opinion you are a pirate. Do you understand English?

So you think the existing laws have had an effect or no effect or not enough?

It's hard to discuss anything with you. your thinking seems to wander. Prove I'm lying.

Laws need to be tighter, so those that serial pirates lose access to the Internet, sites that link pirates, make a living off piracy get removed. The Internet isn't a right to steal. Well it shouldn't be.

The technical I leave to others.

DNS explained

The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical distributed naming system for computers, services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network. It associates various information with domain names assigned to each of the participating entities. Most importantly, it translates domain names meaningful to humans into the numerical identifiers associated with networking equipment for the purpose of locating and addressing these devices worldwide.

An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 192.0.32.10 (IPv4) and 2620:0:2d0:200::10 (IPv6).

The Domain Name System makes it possible to assign domain names to groups of Internet resources and users in a meaningful way, independent of each entity's physical location. Because of this, World Wide Web (WWW) hyperlinks and Internet contact information can remain consistent and constant even if the current Internet routing arrangements change or the participant uses a mobile device. Internet domain names are easier to remember than IP addresses such as 208.77.188.166 (IPv4) or 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8 (IPv6). Users take advantage of this when they recite meaningful Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates them.

The Domain Name System distributes the responsibility of assigning domain names and mapping those names to IP addresses by designating authoritative name servers for each domain. Authoritative name servers are assigned to be responsible for their particular domains, and in turn can assign other authoritative name servers for their sub-domains. This mechanism has made the DNS distributed and fault tolerant and has helped avoid the need for a single central register to be continually consulted and updated.

In general, the Domain Name System also stores other types of information, such as the list of mail servers that accept email for a given Internet domain. By providing a worldwide, distributed keyword-based redirection service, the Domain Name System is an essential component of the functionality of the Internet.

Other identifiers such as RFID tags, UPCs, International characters in email addresses and host names, and a variety of other identifiers could all potentially use DNS.[1][2]

The Domain Name System also specifies the technical functionality of this database service. It defines the DNS protocol, a detailed specification of the data structures and communication exchanges used in DNS, as part of the Internet Protocol Suite.

What don't you understand?

I can see debating means you squirming away from any debate. Keep wriggling worm. :1orglaugh

Yeah, pesky thing is Paul, you have to provide proof when you accuse someone of illegal activity. So I would if I were you, or else you'll be banned. Then wtf would you do all day.

I will also accept a formal apology.


Piracy increases year on year.

You do nothing BUT lie, as has been proven here MANY times over.

Yes, but no one would disagree with your points. THE PROBLEM is the technical applications of it. As none work. If you understood anything at all about the internet you would see that.

Fuck you're so easy to troll. Well done for going to wikipedia.

Now you know what DNS is, can you explain how the bill will work? They are blocking DNS, not IPs.

This law gives anyone who uses false information to get a site shut down immunity from getting sued or held responsible for their false accusation. Read the bill, it's in there. Can you really support that? Seriously?

I think you don't understand the difference between an opinion and fact.

It's my opinion you are a broke loser who earns money from piracy.

You might have to wait a while.:1orglaugh

At a faster or slower or slower rate than it would with less laws. Would more and better laws on online piracy have any effect on your income?

Hi Kettle, this is pot.

So they will have to do more to stop piracy. Why are you such a quitter?

I understand Google. :1orglaugh

They will find out what works, if it does they will make sure it's enforced. If not they will find another way. Unlike you they're not quitting. I'm sure the people at the top of the Government have a better grasp on this than you.

Why are you so worried. What is it that scares you about this law. Will it have any effect on you or your income? You see I get the impression that this law has you and others like Frank and GG, running scared. And the over whelming majority of legal and law abiding companies and workers in the fields suffering from piracy don't have this fear. So I draw from this the conclusion that you in some way fear for your income. Your "freedom" won't be effected if you're law abiding.

Piracy is costing billions if not trillions world wide. If you're law abiding and a tax payer, it's costing you money. Because the lost revenue of companies in the digital media field are losing turn over. This puts companies at a loss, a loss many cover by reducing staff, putting people out of work and onto the dole. Your standard of living is effected by this.


This has nothing to do with less piracy meaning better ratios on porn sites. It's simple economics. Just one example with a fictional company.

Mocrosift employ 1,000s of people worldwide in their offices and production. There are also retail companies selling the product and delivery people. The over all effect is the $billions of turn over employs people, produces a profit, funnels money into the economy. By allowing piracy to flourish part of that turn over leaks out. Often producing less revenue, employing less people and funneling less money into the economy. Often that money goes to countries like Russia and China.

This costs you money in your taxes and sales. Every time you pay taxes, you pay part of it to keep people on the dole. Some who might have a job in a better economy. Also when your emails hit the computer of someone unemployed, he won't be signing up and buying a membership.

And that's why the pirates days are numbered. If this law doesn't work, they will come out with another one and another one and .....................

Because the Western Economies will not allow money to fall out of the holes of piracy.

Pirates will suffer. And only pirates will cry. Are you going to cry?

it a lot worse than that
if give you immunity for anything you want to do to the site
you want to hire a hacker to take the site down, want to DoS it to death you get to do that scott free too.

I don't think you'll really be able to get around the rules like that Paul.

We'll see.

No, because I am not involved in piracy Paul.

As I keep telling you.

Would new laws that stop dirty old men hanging round playgrounds with puppies bother you?

That is clearly wrong. I do not support that and the consequences are dire if it happens.

However are you referring to this?

SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and

(2) the action is consistent with the entity?s terms of service or other contractual rights.


I'll take your word on this as you've been getting away with it for years.

Can you prove this? If not why are you so worried about all measures to curb piracy?

Is it wasting your time and money, will it cost you money?

A law against spamming people or a charge for every email sent, now that I would understand your opposition to. An increase in the laws against piracy, strengthening of existing laws, you have always been consistently against this. Can you see how you might be giving everyone the impression you support piracy? Not good self marketing, you should as a "marketing man, know how to twist the truth or lie. :1orglaugh

No, why should it?

The puppy in question now scares the life out of most people, including grown ups. Only a complete imbecile would think an eight month old Boxer would be a cute lovable puppy. If the cap fits, keep it on Damian.

Glad you've finally realised why people think the bill is bad. We've made progress.


Paul, you accused me of a crime. It is behoves you to produce your evidence. How could I *prove* I am not a pirate?

I'm not worried. I just don't agree with the current proposals. Now you understand why it is bad, why do you agree with it?

This is going round in circles Paul, I said yesterday, some people have the ability to care about things other than those which directly effect them.

I can think about things that don't directly impact my life. Like, say, apartheid. I went on anti apartheid marches. That doesn't make me black. It just means I have the mental capacity to think about other people. Sorry this confuses you so much.

There is a law against spamming people and I am very much in favour of it. Spamming is illegal and bad.

I would understand your opposition to a law that stopped dirty old men hanging round playgrounds with puppies.

I can't lie anywhere near as well as you do. you've lied about my business, my clients, my finances, my domicile, my girlfriend, my sexuality and more. That's quite some going. And all I do is post quotes about what you said. Must gall you something rotten to be forced to lie and just see me posting actual quotes.

Does it worry you that your friends think it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a class of 15 year olds? What do they know about you that we don't?

But really, if they did introduce a law to stop you hanging around parks with a dog, what would you do?

And at 8 months this boxer looks pretty cute to me. I bet the girls love him!



How adorable!

Go read it again. IMO it says that the service provider is immune. The accuser has to make the accusation to a court. Which is similar to todays DMCA. We need a lawyer to comment on this. GFY isn't a layers forum.

IMO. "What I think" is not "what I accuse" go take an English lesson. Or I might think you stupid.
Well we read them differently. The repercussions of what you are saying are immense.

Most conversations with you tend to go like that.

Now off on tangents, got bored with circles?
No fully support it.

You said you had a wife, is it a girlfriend, a wife or both?

What gave you that idea? One of our neighbors is an English teacher and she thinks it a good idea. You dream up these things, go quote the post. Or are you lying again?

Don't have parks around here, we live in the countryside. The open spaces are all around.
Rajah is like that when I hold a biscuit by the camera. When he meets new people he goes crazy, which is what that dog does. Took Rajah for a walk today and we went into the village. A man came up to pat him and for no reason he started to bark with excitement. Not threatening and his tail was wagging, he's 26 kilos of power.

I'm going to shoot a video. BRB

The party making the allegations of copyright violation are not given immunity from damages. Only those who act on those allegations in good faith are given immunity.

Therefore, if you make false accusations against a website that has all legal content, you may be sued for damages by those adversely affected.

Sounds reasonable to me.:thumbsup

Just my opinion.:pimp

Stop lying. Post a quote where I've said that.


You said so. Then you said you were joking. Which post do you want me to find? The one where you said it, or the one where you said you were joking when you said it?


Please don't deliberately antagonise your pet in order to make him look frightening. I am trolling you, I don't want the dog in any sort of suffering for you to try and prove that puppies aren't cute. Really.

It would be interesting if a real lawyer would comment but as I read it, if a Internet provider blocked a site NOT "in the reasonable belief" they would lay themselves open to legal action against them.


Banning the DNS may not be as good as taking down the IP, but I am sure that would slow down and signal something is not right. A lot easier to remember www.stolen stuff.com than 234.56.78.88


Damian is not a pirate, and has said he against piracy, Paul Markham, by making stupid accusations, again destroys another thread that could be interesting.

Oh that makes it OK?

So you have a perfectly legal site, it turns over x,xxx a day. you get closed down because the MPAA say so. You have all financial services removed. You then have no revenue. You make an appeal, this takes x months, during which you have no revenue. THEN you might be able to sue them and try and get the money back?

You think that sounds OK?

it is the duty of the person charging another with a crime to produce evidence.

False accusations ruin lives everyday.

You could be accused of rape.

The Police could take down your site in the false belief of CP

They put people in prison for publishing on facebook.


But why would they?
They would be foolish to take down innocent sites as they would risk losing that power.

The risk to the creative industries is real. So either the Internet companies have to police content and allow the companies to recoup their costs, or the Internet companies can pay the creative industries for all their material being downloaded and charge Internet users the cost.

Well that's what I read it as. Seems a few pirates are scare mongering with their lies.

can you explain to Damian the difference between forming an opinion and charging. He's clueless on this as well.

I've given up reading his lies.

I have a video of a cute puppy to edit. :thumbsup

Can you explain how this will work and the financial consequences of such a malicious attack on a legal website?

I think you'll find the MPAA have to go to the courts with evidence. Go read the act.

I see lots of words like Court Order, Attorney General and filed with the court.

The way you talk it just needs someone to phone u a few people and tell them to take the site down.

When in fact they will have to perjure themselves in court. Grave consequences. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you of GG. I think the people who draw up this law have a better grasp than you make out.

With that in mind why are you against the law?

By lies do you mean when you call me a liar, I remind you that you said you were joking when your friends said it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a group of 15 year olds and call you out and you ignore me?

Cool.

How long will your lie about ignore last this time?

Gawd bless you old man, I have such fun playing with you. Can't believe I got you to shoot a video. fucking lollington lol.

So you don't want to reply to the the fact you lied about the way a site can be taken down. Avoiding that one. By side tracking the debate.

I shot the clip and will do more tomorrow. It was done it for a lot more than you. Still it will show how little you know about dogs.

So back to the thread. You've been proven wrong or lying about what's required to take a site down and the penalties for false testimony. Are you still against the law and if so why?

Sorry, did you want me to post the original thread where you said your friends told you it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a class of 15 year olds, or the one where you said you were joking?

So am I right in thinking this law will also put processing and advertising companies in the frame once notified of an infringing site?

If so the DNS slant is largely irrelevant. It removes the biggest prop to piracy sites. Profit.

What processing company or advertiser will risk facing huge fines for doing business with pirates?

This is going to hit a lot of people if I'm right. "User Uploads" are gone. So Tubes will have to buy content or put full scenes from their own sites on their Tubes to maintain their traffic. Will they buy and can they afford to keep buying. Or is it good business for instance, for Manwin to include a lot of updates from Brazzers and Mofos to keep their traffic coming to them. The advertisers can't risk pirated scenes on the site.

Interesting times ahead.

It's hilarious it's taken you 10 pages to actually read it.

Well it took you longer. Or you were lying.

Let me think of the obvious answer. Lying or had not read it???????

So now I've pointed out your fears are misplaced, what's your opposition to the law?

read it again it doesn't say service provider of the infringing site it simply says service provider

remove your content would also be a service provider (of the copyright holder)

copyright holder tasks a service provider to do all the work

that service provider "accidentally" takes down a legit site

the service provider immunity kicks in because the law grants it to all service providers not just the service providers of he rogue site

btw you again dodged the question

if you truely beleived it impossible to abuse why are you so against putting a clause that says you lose your copyright if you ever abuse it.

if your arguement that it infringement is dead wrong, you now have to live under the rules you think are fair for everyone else to live under.

really 1/3 of all DMCA are bogus

warner brother just admitted in court then when given access to strike their own content from hotfiles
they deliberately removed content they didn't own the copyright too.
has the DMCA been struck down hell no your actually arguing for an even stronger law

the penalties for making false claims should be just as serious as the penalties for infringement.

that the only way you could make such a statement.

based on the current track record you can expect 1 company in 3 to be wrongfully blacklisted from the internet.

the current DMCA requires a declaration of validity under penalty of perjury too

yet 1/3 are bogus

it obvious to anyone that the so called protections against abuse is no where close to enough given that fact

btw you dodged the question

if you truly believed that this law is not going to be abused what your problem with raising the penalty for making a bogus claim to complete loss of copyright.

Agreed, far too many are sent out by automatic programs and this needs to stopped. By removing obvious piracy site a lot of the work against pirates will disappear. Allowing more time for more accurate DMCA's. We all know Hotfile is a site running off of piracy and profiting from piracy. We can easily identify the pirated content. Once that's done and their funding is removed. They are no more. So what's left to deal with?

Yes people making bogus claims need to be hit hard. Even to the extreme of them losing copyright if they don't pay the fine. Same could apply to piracy sites. Which is te problem today, no one takes any real notice of the penalties of piracy.

The clause in the DMCA that allows publishers to get away with not checking, needs removing. It was meant for hosting services, not publishers who do hosting.

actually hotfiles would argue that they simply provide network aware backup services. Like the System management services in corporations, they backup data that has no confidentially requirement (OS and Application state for sms)

the service and revenue doesn't care if the content is pirated, open source, or fully authorized the ad on the side, the upgrade to premium speeds works just as well.


if a judge finally agrees with them then all the people sending notices now should lose their copyright completely

that the point copyright holders agreeing that hotfiles is running off piracy is not enough

the supreme court is the one that matters.


i hate to say it your the closest to getting it here, you still make statements like we all agree hotfiles is running off piracy