Suprnova.org shut down

[shelbyGT]

I never called you out in my post.

You assumed.

You know what assumptions do.

(do you always have to post like this?)

[bazooka]

no matter...these shutting down is all in vain. MPAA might as well BAN internet...

They should be going after these sites.
Plain and simple.
You want the movie, buy it.
There is no valid arguement here.

Wrong...

You do not go after gun manufacturers because someone uses a gun to kill someone. This is the same principle. Go after the person responsible for putting the original warez file out in the open. It is not the site's responsibility.

Statements like go after the site are ignorant.

[bazooka]

Alright, I would say maybe 5% of the total downloads from p2p or torrents are legal (I won't look up facts, I just pulled a number out of my butt). Needless to say, people flock to these for the 'free' downloads of items they'd usually pay for. I'm guilty, as are probably 95% of you on this board.

However, I'm not going to try and sit here and defend my actions, nor should you. I've stopped it altogether now (only use iTunes for music and I actually buy my dvd's). I'm not trying to sound like some angel, it just annoys me when people who abuse it try to defend it.

Who do you see defending anything?

I download linux off bittorrent. It is great in cases of when a new release of a certain distro is out and the servers are swamped.

Actually what was quoted was about 20% is legitimate.


I was just pointing out that as long as something has a legitimate use, it cannot be deemed as illegal and outlawed.

It's not really a valid argument saying that Suprnova is great for getting stuff like Linux distros. Although maybe it is, there are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of other places to get them. So Suprnova shutting down, will really only affect the illegal stuff that is on there. You don't NEED to use Suprnova to download Linux. So why do people keep using the Linux-BT thing as a reason that Suprnova should be allowed to keep going? Linux-BT's are a very SMALL part of Suprnova (probably less than 5% of what goes on there). The odds tell you what is really going on there.

Once again, the Beta max case and relief from contributory manufacturers has nothing to do with P2P operators.

I can't see how the Betamax case has anything to do with the topic at hand either.

You are ignorant of the facts. It is not an illogical argument. I know I did not need suprnova, but at the time, it was the largest index site.

[shelbyGT]

You do not go after gun manufacturers because someone uses a gun to kill someone.

In "Runaway Jury" you do!

[bazooka]

You do not go after gun manufacturers because someone uses a gun to kill someone.

In "Runaway Jury" you do!

What is your point?

[richdvd]

You are ignorant of the facts.

There is a difference between your facts and the actual ones.

[bazooka]

You are ignorant of the facts.

There is a difference between your facts and the actual ones.

You are making yourself look like a fool.

[richdvd]

You are ignorant of the facts.

There is a difference between your facts and the actual ones.

You are making yourself look like a fool.

LMAO!!!!
You are always looking for an arguement. What's the point?

[bazooka]

You are ignorant of the facts.

There is a difference between your facts and the actual ones.

You are making yourself look like a fool.

LMAO!!!!
You are always looking for an arguement. What's the point?

I am not looking for an argument, but you disputed the facts.

Hollywood wants the high court to reverse a district court ruling and a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decision that say file-swapping companies are not liable for the infringement of their users. Judge Stephen Wilson ruled against MGM in a District Court saying, "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are, used to infringe copyrights,". After Hollywood appealed the decision they got the same result from the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. "The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution," Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote in his opinion.

Source:
InternetNews.com

Should I continue to make you look stupid?

[shelbyGT]

You do not go after gun manufacturers because someone uses a gun to kill someone.

In "Runaway Jury" you do!

What is your point?

Do I have to have one? It was supposed to be FUNNY

[bazooka]

You do not go after gun manufacturers because someone uses a gun to kill someone.

In "Runaway Jury" you do!

What is your point?

Do I have to have one? It was supposed to be FUNNY

No, you are ok.



It was funny.

[Baldrick]

blablbalbalbalb

[adam]

I'm sorry for unlocking this Baldrick, I just had to get in one little clarification.

Bazooka, we are not talking about outlawing P2P and the like, we are talking about regulating it.

The DMCA regulates P2P operators to a certain extent, and web operators to a large extent, without making the practice of running them illegal.

An analogy...alcohol is legal, but regulated. If you are underage and drink it, its a crime (like downloading bootleg) if you are a merchant and you physically sell it to a minor that is also a crime (like uploading directly to individual) and if you own the store and know that your clerk is selling to minors and you don't do anything, then you can be held vicariously liable as well (failing to remove known links to infringing material.) It happens all the time both with alcohol as well as web sites.