Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: SadisticSid on December 19, 2004, 11:59:10 am
-
http://www.suprnova.org
D'oh. I wonder if another site will be able to fill the void it left behind, and whether its disappearance was down to maintenance problems or external intervention...
[color=66ff00]Merged the threads Sid, we posted at almost the same time. :)
[/color]
-
[color=66ff00]Suprnova.org officially closed its doors today, seems there's a rumour that the MPAA went after them but that's conjecture at this point.
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that this is going to inspire someone to design a new torrenting system or something like it with less transparent detection possibilities.
Right now bittorrent is responsible for around a thrid of internet traffic, it's not going to go away irrespective of what the MPAA or other media crippling organisation want.
Here's to the next level. :yes:
[/color]
-
This explains why it's been acting odd all day. A sad day for sure, but another service will rise from the ashes.... they always do. :)
-
OH SWEET FANCY MOSES!!
*faints*
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Right now bittorrent is responsible for around a thrid of internet traffic, it's not going to go away irrespective of what the MPAA or other media crippling organisation want.
Here's to the next level. :yes:
[/color]
uhm, a third? Are you sure about that? Do you have any idea how much a third of *all* internet traffic is?
-
Good job I've got three other torrent sites on my link bar :nod:
__________________
Diamond Geezer has precisely zero moral objection to interweb piracy
-
Originally posted by Rictor
OH SWEET FANCY MOSES!!
*faints*
uhm, a third? Are you sure about that? Do you have any idea how much a third of *all* internet traffic is?
Link (news.softpedia.com/news/2/2004/November/10205.shtml)
[color=66ff00]
BTW DG, regarding your siggy: The new term is 'media liberation'. When was the last time you boarded a boat, murdered the crew and looted it?
Remember folks, we can play the Orwellian word game too, liberate some media today!
[/color]
-
I'm encouraged by the fact that less than a month ago, Suprnova was asking for beta testers for a new file-sharing program called Ezeem. I didn't sign up because it explicitly said that you would have to be active, and I wasn't sure I could do that.
Maeg: right on! We ain't no scurvy pirate dogs. Yarrrr!
Though I wouldn't mind the term "Men of Low Moral Fibre".
:D :D
-
"Good god we've lost the Galatea!"
-
A third of traffic doesn't sound too unrealistic today. When you look at the range of torrents handled by suprnova, it's not hard to add up the numbers and see that more than a million people, presumably with access to high-tier broadband are active in a single period of time. The only unscalable thing about BitTorrent is the torrent host itself - occasionally it can't meet the demand for even providing access to, never mind seeding, the content.
-
This is the next best site. http://www.torrentreactor.net/index.php
-
actually, Piratebay.org might be the next biggest, though isohunt.com is always the best choice since its essentially a search engine for BT and includes a huge number of trackers, including all the biggest ones.
-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=exeem&btnG=Google+Search
-
*commits suicide*
All those wonderful things I was about to download once I got my hands on this new 160 GB baby...
-
*cough*
isohunt.com.
-
Well, that sucks ass.
-
Originally posted by an0n
...
couldn't have said it better myself :(
-
destroy one enemy and create ten more...it all started with napster.
-
hehe, ph34r the embed.
-
My Quicktime is too old....
EDIT: Apparently it isn't. Seems it isn't properly integrated with Firefox for some reason....
-
you act like it's the end of bittorrent. there's hundreds of other torrent sites out there... if anything, this is only the beginning.
-
oooh, so its a full scale war, is it?
Fine then.
DOWN
suprnova
Torrentbits
phoenix
DVDr-Core
Torrentmania
BT-GM
youceff
tbox
DOUBTFULL
filelist.org is full
torrentreactor seems to be working
bi-torrent
lokitorrent is restarting
WORKING
elite-torrents
lots of other, smaller sites.
*note that this is just a copy-paste from somewhere else and The Management can not be held responsible for the accuracy of the above list.
-
RIAA/MPAA = t3h Shivans........
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4110877.stm
__________________
Diamond Geezer always observes International Talk Like A Pirate Day
-
Just make sure you stop spending any money on going to see, rent or buy films.
-
All of my favorite bit torrent sites have bit the dust. SHOOT.
-
Well it's all definately caused a performance hit, I'm barely able to get any torrent to actually connect, and when I do they're averaging about 2KB/s.
-
Oh well...it happens, old torrent sites goes down and new ones takes their place.
I don't use any filesharing so much, just some things that i want find
-
read this foo's
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=626
edit: actually, not really all that interesting
-
Coverup.
http://forum.muphin.net/viewtopic.php?t=12
And this link cannot be posted too many times.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=exeem&btnG=Google+Search
Suprnova will be back... with eXeem.
-
I'm going to risk some controversy by saying that if the site was used for illegal file sharing, then maybe they did the right thing?
Or am I missing some moral argument here?
To me illegal = wrong *shrug*
-
Yeah, but the MPAA and RIAA are creatively bankrupt dickheads anyway, so...........
-
Originally posted by Clave
To me illegal = wrong *shrug*
what?
Since when does the government decide what is right and wrong. are you saying that any law in existence is just simply because it is a law? There are tons of laws that are blatantly wrong, and people shouldn't simply go along because the authority figure tells them to. What if they made a law tommorow that said wearing blue shirts was illegal. Would it be wrong to wear blue?
Yes, it is stealing, but stealing isn't always wrong. I fully acknowledge that I am stealing, but when we're talking about faceless, usually heartless corporations who are in large part responsible for the stifiling of creativity in the music industry, I just don't care.
-
I don't think 'I broke the law because I think it's wrong' is a particulalry effective defense, though.
-
However, let it not be said I will ever support the likes of the RIAA and (in this case) their Antipodean cousins;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/20/music_biz_red_cross/
Australian anti-piracy operatives are seeking a freeze on funds donated to the International Red Cross by a Vanuatu-based trust fund run by Sharman Networks - maker of Kazaa P2P software.
The recording industry is asking the Red Cross to voluntarily freeze the cash pending the outcome of an Australian court case brought against Sharman by several record companies. The suit alleges that Sharman "has directly and indirectly infringed on the recording companies' copyrights, violated Australian fair trade laws and conspired to harm the music industry", according to a Wired report.
Michael Speck of Australia’s Music Industry Piracy Investigations said: "We're preparing our approach to the International Red Cross. I believe this whole thing will come as a complete surprise to them, and we’re only approaching them to stop them disposing of any funds."
Speck expressed his hope that the Red Cross would co-operate, adding: "It would be incredibly disappointing if we had to sue them."
Sharman has responded by declaring that the music biz's approach is "quite simply staggering", as the company's lawyer Mary Still put it.
The ongoing Sharman v Recording Industry case has been adjourned until next March, when both sides can make final oral submissions. The outcome depends on the judge's opinion of the music industry's assertion that the "primary activity of Kazaa users is to infringe copyright" - something that Sharman allegedly does nothing to prevent. ®
-
The government decides the law, if you don't like that fact then **** off...
Or elect a new government....
Or do some revolutionary thing, you know, I just don't care...
-
aldo: not a good legal defence, I admit, but that's why you shouldn't get caught. There is a difference between a legal and a moral defence.
Originally posted by Clave
The government decides the law, if you don't like that fact then **** off...
Thats a complete inversion of the principle of democracy and you damn well know it. The will of the people isn't something that happens once every four years, and then only between one of two monkies, its a continous process.
You know there's slogal in North Korea "The government decides, the people act"...
-
Look at it from another point: How the bloody **** am I supposed to get music from The Pogues or Fairport Convention if I cannot find vinyl's and CD's are impossible to get?
Or even if I somehow manage to get a store to order the stuff for me, how would I raise 20 euros? The artists wouldn't make more then 5 cents. Even if they make 50 cents from the album, I am NOT paying record company's 17 euro's for shipping and handling. (A CD cannot be more then €2,50 to make, including a rather thick booklet.)
-
I miss TV shows, that's what I always used suprnova for, I'd've had no problem if there was a little banner add at the top of my computer during the download to pay for it, like is done with TV shows, why is it so imposable for these people to figure out a simple market stratigy that works online?!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo: not a good legal defence, I admit, but that's why you shouldn't get caught. There is a difference between a legal and a moral defence.
But, if you were downloading music from a struggling indie label with low margins and a genuine aim for quality, would that still be ok?
My arguement for file-sharing is basically that it provides a service akin to radio; you can discover new music and then buy the album, helping artists without the financial backing to match the advertising of talentless ****e-pop.
But evaluating the wholesale morality of a law on the basis of a single victim / group of victims is not the way to go.
-
a lot of indie bands suport file shareing as it gets them noticed by more people.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I miss TV shows, that's what I always used suprnova for, I'd've had no problem if there was a little banner add at the top of my computer during the download to pay for it, like is done with TV shows, why is it so imposable for these people to figure out a simple market stratigy that works online?!
Surely they make a mint from product placement in these shows anyways? Just factor in the number of downloads, increase the placement costs to the advertiser; and there you go.
Originally posted by Bobboau
a lot of indie bands suport file shareing as it gets them noticed by more people.
:nod:
'zackly. I've bought something like 3 or 4 albums from fairly small groups in the last 2 weeks thanks to downloading tracks; I've probably discovered about 10 bands that way (which includes buying their back catalogue, so about 20-30 CDs).
I think the reason the big labels don't like filesharing, is because they have no control over it; their attempts to overmarket vacous tat won't work, and the smaller artists have a more level playing field. Basically, they don't want people to be able to hear good music; because it'd put their top earners out of business.
(NB: my arguement is that it's unfair to just ignore a law because that punishes a specific 'victim' of that law; I don't think P2P should be illegal on the simple basis that it'squite a bit like radio)
-
Well thats the thing, I don't think most filesharers are assholes. I certainly think it would be wrong to rip of indie bands that are indeed dedicated to quality, but I guess thats up to the individual to decide. I know that in alot of cases (reffering to comics in my case, but music too I would imagine) the pirated release has a very clear "If you like it, buy it" message attached to it.
It has to be decided on a case by case basis. I think that by and large, people wouldn't support pirating from small labels, because its very clear that they depend on the revenues for survival and that they're not simply corporate cash-cows.
-
I think the problems began when music stopped being art and started being an industry.
-
well spoken, asshopper.
-
filelist org pawnz :)
-
[color=66ff00]Wake up people! Media liberation has been brainwashed into you as a bad thing when it is in fact quite the opposite. They use words like intellectual property and piracy to make their position seem like the moral choice, bear in mind that these are the people who exploit artists and stifle creativity. (Note that I use the term 'media liberation' in the same fashion that they use the above terms, it is meant more as an example of how words can make something appear to be inclined in a moral sense).
The RIAA/MPAA and their other international counterparts openly coerce governments into changing the laws, the laws are not by the people for the people they're by the fat-cats for the fat-cats. It used to be that that buying a government was an act that would incite anger, now it's so commonplace people accept it.
Artists no longer own their works, Sony and Warner do, for the lifetime of the artist + 70 years. You're an artist and you get stiffed by the music company, too bad, they continue to sell your work, fire you and give you some meagre amount that they have fixed in your legally binding contract. Check out Sonny Bono's 'contributions' to laws in this area, that guy was real upstanding person (not to mention a senator - are we detecting any government influencing here?).
At this time copying media costs effectively nothing to do, any smart business would see this and alter their business model to take advantage of this fact but that might endanger the frankly ****ing insane profits that are made for the amount of time it takes to move to the new model.
"Oh sorry darling, I can't afford to buy you another new Ferrari this month, this internet is making us poor, I hardly made $100,000 last month!".
Lets examine a certain 'fact' that so many of you are willing to accept: copying is killing the music/film industries. The RIAA claim that every CD that is copied affects their sales, I don't know if I've missed something but if I remember correctly data costs almost nothing to clone, most people who use liberated media were never going to buy it had they no access to it therefore the RIAA and its brethren were never going to get money from that person regardless.
Say a person downloads an album that they've heard a track from on TV or the radio, the work in question is poor and is being sold under the pretense that all of the album is of the calibur of that track, is it fair to expect to pay for the entire album? Some would say that this is selling under false pretenses; they refer to themselves as an industry, the goods that they sell are highly controlled and should be of a uniform high quality regardless of being 'art'.
Lets also examine the claim that artists are directly affected by media liberation (not something you'll hear many artists claim incidently). You create a movie or an album and some guy copies it and gives that copy to his friend, that person has obviously had some direct and maligned effect on your life hasn't he? He came into your home and literally stole cash from you...
Didn't he?
I reward those that deserve rewarding, I buy something because I know it is good not based on hear-say or advertisements. That way I punish the industry that feeds us non-inspiring, carbon copies of the same thing they pumped out last week.
Media liberation could be the one thing that actually saves art.
[/color]
-
Let not forget that, IIRC, this year has seen record album sales.
-
Preach it brother!
What to we want!?
Media liberation!
When do we want it!?
At the industry's earliest convenience!
ya!
-
Media Liberation! ;7:yes:
-
hell if they kicked the prices down .... id buy it its the insane ****ing numbers that scare me off
-
Getting TV shows off the net should be legalized. Getting music off the net should be legalized. Games on the other hand... That should be moderated. Prices should be lowered, and the games not just pumped out. Movies should be allowed to be downloaded. Think of 700 meg divx movies that cost 5 dollars to download from the main studios on the day of the premiere. Suddenly you got a choice. Watch it in the theater, or watch it on your comp/tv. Then when it comes out on dvd, you can buy the dvd with all its extras. The best part is, they'll still make their gazzillions cause the folks who wont go to the movies, will still pay the same "net" price the theaters pay the studios when tey watch it on their comp. Tadaa! Problem solved. With the speeds the net is reaching, I can see this as turning into a streaming option or something.
Ooh, consider this. Think of all those Direct to Video or DVD releases. Now even smaller companies can publish their movies to the largest audience on the world with direct to Stream.
-
I don't go to the cinema that often, but I'd miss it after it had been killed off by your idea....
-
Being a realist thats all. Movie theaters will NEVER be killed off. People will always go to social events such as the movies. Like hell people are gonna go "Come over to my house to watch a movie baby." Instead of going to the movie theater. And theres still something about watching a film with a large audience and on a giant screen with great sound.
-
Yeah, I wonder how much they were actually losing when suprnova was running?
-
Not a single red cent would be my bet.
-
If you were planning on seeing a movie in the theater you'd go anyway. You cannot have that a high-res version from the web, you cannot have the sound system or the big screen. So yeah, if you were going to see it, you would. If you weren't going to pay for the theater, you might pay a lot less and watch it at home.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Since when does the government decide what is right and wrong.
off the record here, but i was always pretty sure the government did decide what was right and wrong... by making laws; )
i don't think anyone can argue whether file-sharing was legally wrong... because it was. the only argument should be whether it's morally wrong.
-
Yeah, basically.
Laws mean nothing, since they're just enforced through fear of punishment. Laws are not inherently right or wrong, its the morality behind them that matters. Governments can decide right and wrong the same way the mafia can - you follow the rules cause there's a can of whoop ass waiting if you don't. That's not genuine morality, only "legal morality".
Which basically boils down to the individual simply ignoring any laws that are unjust, and likewise following non-existant laws that are just.
-
...which is why i said that it's "legally wrong". i also mentioned, note, the fact on morally right or wrong.
-
Hmm...wait...I was about to reply, and I just found out...the last post I made in this thread was deleted...
Why?
-
Originally posted by Clave
I don't go to the cinema that often, but I'd miss it after it had been killed off by your idea....
Movie theatre's already charge rediculous amounts of money.
-
bwahahaha
suprnova mirror is up, get it while you can
http://www.bi-torrent.com/
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yeah, basically.
Laws mean nothing, since they're just enforced through fear of punishment. Laws are not inherently right or wrong, its the morality behind them that matters. Governments can decide right and wrong the same way the mafia can - you follow the rules cause there's a can of whoop ass waiting if you don't. That's not genuine morality, only "legal morality".
Which basically boils down to the individual simply ignoring any laws that are unjust, and likewise following non-existant laws that are just.
Which would be totally unworkable in practice as everyone has different ideas of morality; you'd probably end up with teenage mothers being burnt in the streets.
-
Would you rather have one all powerful group imposing its views on morality, and having that group be seen as legitimate no less, than every person imposing their view of morality as far as they can enforce it, which is not too damn far?
The government's law is right only because they can enforce it via the police and military. As soon as someone becomes powerful enough to openly defy those, they no longer apply to him/her. Basiically, rule by force is what the government is.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Would you rather have one all powerful group imposing its views on morality, and having that group be seen as legitimate no less, than every person imposing their view of morality as far as they can enforce it, which is not too damn far?
Of course. The alternative is anarchy; you would have no laws whatsoever and be relying upon the good nature of people.
Originally posted by Rictor
The government's law is right only because they can enforce it via the police and military. As soon as someone becomes powerful enough to openly defy those, they no longer apply to him/her. Basiically, rule by force is what the government is.
The force of majority support. You're talking about a fault in the application of the system, not the principles of it.
-
I would rather have anarchy than institionalized tyranny. Democracy is still tyranny of the majority against the minority. What's scarier, 1984 or a state of lawlessness?
Now of course we're talking about pure idealogy, not practice. In practice, I would support neither extreme (tyranical government or no government) but a happy middle. However, I think that large groups, whoever they may be, are to be feared because they are able to more readily oppress those who disagree with them than an individual or small group would. Centralization of power almost inevitably leads to tyranny, of this there can be little doubt.
You seem to overestimate the degree of political involvement and knowledge possessed by most oeople. Democracy means nothing if the choices are not informed, and I think that in large part they're not. Anyone with alot of money and a slick PR campaign can win the support of the people, and thereby claim that his views reflect the majority views. Give me a few billion dollars and the best marketing firms on the planet, and I can get people to believe that an attack from Neptune is imminent, and that the only way to prevent it is to lock up all gypsies in prisons.
-
I don't see how any of that could justify the wholesale idea of ignoring the laws you don't agree with. I would say lawlessness and 1984 style tyranny are equally terrifying prospects when taken to an equivalent level of extremity.
Human nature leads to centralisation of power and conflict; you can see it in tribal structures from hundreds, thousands of years ago. So of course it's going to be reflected in having a government; even if you abolished it overnight, you'd still end up with various sized ethnic and social groups emerging and filling similar roles - but without the legal and social checks carried with democracy.
-
Well, thats the problem, isn't it? Human nature leads to the formation of ever larger and more powerful organizations, which become increasingly tyranical.
There's no way to keep government small and decentralized, cause people will just build it up again, like those novelty pencils that keep coming back up when you knock them down.
For me, and this is just me, losing control of my destiny to a large, omnipotent group (the government, when taken to the extreme) is far worse than worrying about who's going to come around with a bat and try to steal my food. At least that way, I am in control, and if I loose out, oh well. But with the type of resources that are at the government's disposal (everything from surveilance, to police to money), its nearly impossible to effectively fight back and maintain control.
-
There are pills you can take for that level of control freakery Rictor. ;)
While I may agree that governments can become tyranical I'd take any current western government (even Bush's) over anarchy. As you say people just end up building their own governments. This doesn't just occur wit big government. It starts right at the grass roots. So instead of being subservient to a big faceless government you end up serving a tyranical warlord who's managed to grab some small chunk of the country to himself.
The only way to avoid that in an anarchy is to become the dictator yourself.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, thats the problem, isn't it? Human nature leads to the formation of ever larger and more powerful organizations, which become increasingly tyranical.
There's no way to keep government small and decentralized, cause people will just build it up again, like those novelty pencils that keep coming back up when you knock them down.
For me, and this is just me, losing control of my destiny to a large, omnipotent group (the government, when taken to the extreme) is far worse than worrying about who's going to come around with a bat and try to steal my food. At least that way, I am in control, and if I loose out, oh well. But with the type of resources that are at the government's disposal (everything from surveilance, to police to money), its nearly impossible to effectively fight back and maintain control.
Can you ever 'control' your life anyway? Too much depends on other people.......
-
In Canada, file sharing is legal. :D (Music, movies, etc., but not apps, as far as I know.)
It makes me wonder why people don't put up their bittorrent tracker servers here where big bad MPAA trolls can't get at them.
-
one all powerful group imposing its views on morality
*cough* *cough* US Republican Party *cough*
It makes me wonder why people don't put up their bittorrent tracker servers here where big bad MPAA trolls can't get at them.
Suprnova.org was based on eastern europe somewhere, croatia or one of the other ex-yugoslav states IIRC. MPAA couldn't touch it there.
Rictor & Aldo: I actually would prefer the kind of solution in Deus Ex 1 where a good person merges with a super advanced AI.
-
Slovenia, which is where the owner, sloncek (er, it means elephant as far as I can make out), lives.
However, the servers weren't actually in Slovenia, they were all over the place, but the law says that the owner is accountable so wherever the owner lives, that's which laws apply.