Copyright Lobby Calls Out Plex For Not Doing Enough To Stop Piracy (inputmag.com) 158
An anonymous reader shares a report: For those who don't want to dive fully into torrents, Plex is a great alternative for streaming television shows and movies for free. Officially, Plex is a "neutral" media player, and it first became popular with people looking to stream content between devices at home, like from their desktop in the study to their laptop in their bedroom. But, with Plex Media Server, users can also share media with other users to stream, creating a virtual free-for-all, and a serious problem from a copyright perspective. CreativeFuture, a pro-copyright coalition boasting more than 560 members, has taken notice and is calling out the platform, along with rival service Kodi.
"Thanks to a rapidly growing media application called Plex, torrent-based piracy is back in vogue, and better than ever (for criminals who have no problem with profiting from content that doesn't belong to them, that is)," the coalition writes in a blog post. Those who pay $4.99 per month for Plex Pass are able to share their libraries with up to 100 users. As Creative Future points out, this isn't always done for the sake of altruism, or so family's can share their legally procured copies of Frozen. Some Plex users actually charge for access to their content -- a more nefarious (though, granted, enterprising) evolution from the totally free world of torrenting. For extra sass, the shared content can be pirated to begin with.
"Thanks to a rapidly growing media application called Plex, torrent-based piracy is back in vogue, and better than ever (for criminals who have no problem with profiting from content that doesn't belong to them, that is)," the coalition writes in a blog post. Those who pay $4.99 per month for Plex Pass are able to share their libraries with up to 100 users. As Creative Future points out, this isn't always done for the sake of altruism, or so family's can share their legally procured copies of Frozen. Some Plex users actually charge for access to their content -- a more nefarious (though, granted, enterprising) evolution from the totally free world of torrenting. For extra sass, the shared content can be pirated to begin with.
LOL no shit. (Score:2)
Wait, people use Plex for something besides piracy?
Re:LOL no shit. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is having a service where you can share with people.
This isn't ripping a DVD and saving it on a server. But Ripping the DVD and sharing it with people who may in turn share it with others.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is having a service where you can share with people. This isn't ripping a DVD and saving it on a server. But Ripping the DVD and sharing it with people who may in turn share it with others.
This isn't what this feature of Plex is intended for, it's intended for you to play your own media on any device anywhere you happen to be. Just because idiots are sharing it with OTHER PEOPLE, doesn't make it Plex's responsibility any more than it makes it Netflix's responsibility if you share your log in credentials with another person. This is the "copyright lobby" going after Plex because they assume Plex is being used for piracy.
Note: I do use Plex, but I'm not a paid subscriber, I couldn't care less
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't what this feature of Plex is intended for, it's intended for you to play your own media on any device anywhere you happen to be. Just because idiots are sharing it with OTHER PEOPLE, doesn't make it Plex's responsibility any more than it makes it Netflix's responsibility if you share your log in credentials with another person.
No, that's not the feature they are talking about. You need to read up on everything Plex can do. You can share libraries and collections with other Plex account holders. You don't have to give them your own credentials. Go to your Settings page on the web portal and the "Users and Sharing" feature. You can create "managed users" (like Netflix profiles) to your Household, for people in your own home to track what they are watching and restrict access (like kids), but you can also add "Friends" to your serve
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, people use Plex for something besides piracy?
Yes. I use it 100% legally.
I use it as a DVR for my cable TV habit. I record the shows I want to see automatically and watch them at my leisure, commercial free. I also am ripping my DVD and Blu Ray collection so I can watch them on all my devices. But I have media for all the movies I have on my Plex server.
I know there are people who share their Plex content and go out looking for content on the web, but I do not share or download stuff I don't legally have a right to watch. I have way too much to lose
Re: (Score:2)
"Those who pay $4.99 per month for Plex Pass are able to share their libraries with up to 100 users"
I think that is the biggest problem, this reminds me of Napster during the 1990's
It is one thing to offer software that just does something. However if you are a paying for a service, then the service provider needs to be sure they are handling legal data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't bother ripping... I just use Kodi to download rips of DVDs and BluRay disks that I already paid good money for. How can that be a crime?
Re: LOL no shit. (Score:2)
Did plex respond with âoesuck my big black cock!â
They should have because immediately they would have questioned if what they were doing was racially motivated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, isn't copyright infringement a civil violation?
Usually. But large-scale commercial infringement can result in criminal charges as well.
Civil vs Criminal Copyright Infringement [wikipedia.org]
Plex is unlikely to be charged with a crime. But with Napster as a precedent, what they are doing is very likely illegal infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
But with Napster as a precedent, what they are doing is very likely illegal infringement.
Napster's primary purpose was to facilitate the illegal trading of media files. That is not the case with Plex. How is Napster a precedent in this case?
Re:LOL no shit. (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. The primary purpose is to provide a single place for you to access your media files from multiple devices. I cannot play a dvd on my phone or my tablet, but I can rip it, put it on my plex and now I can watch it whenever I want, from whichever device I want.
CAN I share my media with others? Sure, but that doesn't just happen automatically, and to call that the primary purpose of the entire piece of software is disingenuous.
They could pull that feature from the software and it wouldn't affect me one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no requirement in copyright law that infringement is the PRIMARY activity of the infringer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say there was, but given how Napster's PRIMARY purpose was copyright infringement, and Plex's is NOT, I still fail to see how Napster is a precedent for this.
I mean, Plex can simply remove the sharing feature to solve this "problem". 99% of the rest of the functionality remains and the primary purpose of the software is unaffected. If Napster removed sharing, the software would cease to exist.
These 2 things are not remotely alike.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, Plex can simply remove the sharing feature to solve this "problem".
Of course. Nobody is saying Plex needs to be shut down.
These 2 things are not remotely alike.
Napster was sued for creating a platform that enabled peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted content.
Plex is being sued for creating a platform that enables peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted content.
Re: LOL no shit. (Score:2)
plex should just move next door to sci hub.
Re:LOL no shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but case history is that technology with a legitimate primary purpose gets to live. VCRs, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but case history is that technology with a legitimate primary purpose gets to live. VCRs, for example.
That is not analogous to Plex. With VCRs, copying is an unavoidable consequence. Stopping the copying would mean banning the technology.
With Plex, public sharing is not a necessary feature and could be turned off without interfering with people using the service for sharing between their own devices.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just as necessary as recording on a VCR. As in, it isn't necessary but it shouldn't be removed because it provides a function to a large number of people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no requirement in copyright law that infringement is the PRIMARY activity of the infringer.
A hammer's PRIMARY activity isn't murdering people but it's certainly CAPABLE of doing it. In fact, blunt weapons are involved in more homicides in the USA than guns every year according to FBI crime statistics. Does this mean hammer manufacturers should be sued for aiding and abetting murder? Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous.
The copyright lobby is doing what what it's always done: going after anyone big enough to make an example out of. It tried going after individual users, which failed. I
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I should have been more precise, seeing your comment and the moderation I got.
I didn't mean "share with strangers" but "share within your house and devices".
Re: LOL no shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh fuck them. If Facebook cannot be held liable for their bullshit, or the commercials they air, or the kiddie porn, or beheading videos, or the facebook live RAPES, because they are a PLATFORM; then plex should get a free fucking pass. Sick of these hollywood liberal RIAA and MPAA fucks getting special treatment. If I wrote software and it was getting pirated on a large scale, the best I could expect is a civil court case, not criminal prosecution. But the SAG, MPAA, ans all the hollywood elitist fucks donate millions, if not billions, to political organizations. Cant have them losing money, its bad for donations.
In this case Plex isnt even hosting the content. All they did is make software and _some_ people pay $5/mo to use the DVR feature with a schedule of programming.
Re: LOL no shit. (Score:2)
Only if you are the RIAA or MPAA. If you wrote a program for $45 and the whole fucking planet stole it, nobody would go to jail for distribution. Because you dont have thousands of members donating to political candidates. All animals are equal, some animals are MORE EQUAL than others
Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
Mass piracy is a symptom of the real problem. Fix that problem and piracy will go down.
Re: (Score:2)
What problem? Mass piracy is a perfectly human response to the insane notion of artificial scarcity.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, artificial scarcity is a perfectly human response to the insane notion of mass piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix figured out a way to make it easy for people to consume
Re:Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
> The real problem is, nobody likes to pay.
Baloney. iTunes came after Napster, if you recall.
But $15 to have a downloadable/streamable movie when a DVD of the same movie is $10?
I pay $2 for Redbox rentals all the time and would happily pay Amazon as much for an MP4 in the 4500Kbps range.
People copy video for EXACTLY the same reason they copied audio - and the same solution will work again. The greedy morons are back in court suing Napster, err... Plex again. The results will be the same as long as somebody can sell as well as Jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:4, Insightful)
I go to the library, they have a lot of DVD's that they happily lend me for free (as long as I return them within a week-4 weeks)
Re: (Score:2)
You have also failed to address his point, which is that digital media is priced badly.
I'll try again, slower this time. Shit costs what it does. As a consumer, your options are:
1. Buy it
2. Don't buy it
It's never been an option to steal shit that you think is priced unfairly, especially if it's a discretionary item like a movie. There's lot of stuff I want and can't afford. I never think about just taking it... even if I can do it without pointing a gun or punching someone in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
The point here was not whether you should pirate or not. Not at all.
The point is that piracy comes from the fact that people have the feeling of being ripped of, therefore if they were not pirating movies they would simply not buy them.
So when producers are whining that piracy causes them a "loss" in revenue, this argument says that the loss in revenue is because of piracy but because of the inability of producers to price things right.
Of course the reality is in between. A part of the loss is because of
Re: (Score:2)
Of course how much the loss is, and how much piracy and bad pricing are responsible for that loss is totally unknown. If you have any source showing that, please share.
Justification #76: Someone has to prove to me that stealing has a negative effect. If that can't do that then it's okay to steal.
So when producers are whining that piracy causes them a "loss" in revenue, this argument says that the loss in revenue is because of piracy but because of the inability of producers to price things right.
Justification #9: The people I'm stealing from are big-wig producers with $$$ coming out their asses, screw them, I'm fucking Robin Hood!
Justification #2: It's their fault because they [priced things too high|don't distribute it how I like|don't distribute it in the format I like|don't produce content that's worth paying for]. They are forcing me to pirate.
Most of the things you b
Re: (Score:2)
Justification 76 is again missing the point. Copying is not exactly like stealing. You do not necessarily deprive someone from something. You do if you copy something you would have bought otherwise, you don't if you wouldn't have bought it anyways. Which is exactly the original point. How much is copy-instead-of-buy versus copy-instead-of-not-buy.
I fail to see why you bring up Justification 9. Never made that point.
All the rest of your comment is again starting with the hypothesis that piracy is 100% cop
Re: (Score:2)
I think my "Turn on, tune in, drop out" response is much more dangerous to filmmakers in the long run.
Though it's worth quoting Timothy Leary here to contextualize:
Re: Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:2)
Where I live, I can actually legally make a copy from library CDs and DVDs for time shifted use.
I fail to see why people argument the way you do, self righteous but limited.
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't give you a right to things out of distribution.
Just because a 1983 movies is not available for you to obtain doesn't grant you the right to copy a friend's disc or pirate it off the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The public doesn't feel it has got the shaft (Score:2)
Copyright is a social bargain, and the public is getting the shaft on the deal.
You may feel that you are getting the shaft on the copyright bargain. The public as a whole currently does not feel the same way. Otherwise, there would be sizable single-issue voting blocs against the present balance of copyright, just as there are in favor of and against abortion.
Non-Sequitur (Score:2)
You may feel that you are getting the shaft on the copyright bargain. The public as a whole currently does not feel the same way. Otherwise, there would be sizable single-issue voting blocs against the present balance of copyright, just as there are in favor of and against abortion.
The single issue voting is because those voters believe their issue is of ultimate importance. In the case of abortion, they believe it is a matter of life and death. There could be MANY people who agree that copyright is way out of balance but decide their votes are best spent in furtherance of issues of greater importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretend that the work doesn't exist (Score:2)
It's not released at all, or not made available in your "region", thus there is /no/ option to buy it legally
If the owner of copyright in a work refuses to make a copy of a work available to you at a reasonable price, what prevents you from pretending that that work was never produced in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However in the Real World there's such a thing as antitrust laws that prevent a monopoly from existing for that reason. Then Netflix gets broken up, one way or another. Now we have several companies, and a convoluted mess of who gets the 'rights' to what content. So we're back where we started from. And, people get sick of the shit, say 'fuck it', and start
Re: (Score:2)
It should be more like music, with general non-discriminatory licensing. Whether you watch it from Billy Bob's streaming service, or Netflix, shouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse #37: it's not available in my region.
The fact that someone decides not to sell your something doesn't give you the right to steal it from them. But anyway, we know that's a very minor part of what we are dealing with here.
You keep confusing violating copyright with theft. They are not the same thing. If I steal your car, I'm depriving you the use of your car, harming you directly. This is not what happens when I duplicate a movie or TV show.
If a content owner isn't willing to license their content in my region, and I make a copy, I've neither deprived them off a sale (since they won't sell a license to me) note have I prevented them from selling a license to anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when "final fantasy the spirits within" got released on dvd, i bought it. Properly. It did not even cross my mind to find a bootleg copy, i liked the movie so much (watched it first at my university's cinema, they show a film now and then). As for downloading it, that would be ridiculous as the internet back then was shitty PSTN and telcoms charged by the minute.
At the time my sony trinitron computer monitor had died so i was using a shitty TV as my monitor via the graphic card's analog tv out. When i put t
Re:Mass piracy is a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
Its like buying a media storage shelf, putting it in your living room with the idea that IKEA can come in and repaint it or cover it with marketing whenever they want, without limit or end. I refuse to pay for that kind of product.
Re: (Score:3)
Its like buying a media storage shelf, putting it in your living room with the idea that IKEA can come in and repaint it or cover it with marketing whenever they want, without limit or end.
Or remove it altogether.
Or charge you every time you want to set something on it.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is, nobody likes to pay.
You must have missed a few words at the end "... what they're charging."
In the old days it was >$20 for a one time view of a shitty movie that, if we had some level of free market on the video, would have fallen in price. Today it's being held hostage to streaming services who charge very high monthly fees, and prevent you from binge watching, for basically one show. And a whole lot of shit.
I have no problem paying for Netflix or Amazon prime. But the rest (espe
Re: (Score:3)
oh and let's not forget region locks. I'm being charged more because I live in a rich country, and it's piracy for me to go buy a video from any other country where the prices are lower.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem paying for Netflix or Amazon prime. But the rest (especially one hit wonders like CBS All Access & Disney) are highway robbery. The pirates are just keeping it real and creating a free market where none exists.
I have no problem paying for chicken. But the rest (especially steak and salmon) are highway robbery. The pirates are just keeping it real by stealing the steak and salmon and selling them at a discount.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem paying for chicken. But the rest (especially steak and salmon) are highway robbery. The pirates are just keeping it real by stealing the steak and salmon and selling them at a discount.
Irrelevant. The pirates stealing steak and salmon are, theoretically, depriving someone else of food. Not true with content piracy, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that content creation costs money and folks depend on sales to buy things like food and shelter.
Your response is of course going to be some bullshit about how copying bits doesn't cost anything, so you can make a copy for yourself and no one gets hurt. What if 50% of people decided to copy a movie instead of buying? 90%? 100%? Of course that's going to effect real life human beings. There are tons of regular people and indies that depend on content creation for their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument I'm bad for borrowing movies from the library or buying them at the thrift store or worse, going without, which is what I usually do as it is the wife who wants to go to the library etc.
Hopefully they'll get their way and no one will pirate or buy.
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument I'm bad for borrowing movies from the library
The library pays a licensing fee of the amount that was set by the content producer. You'll notice if you check out ebooks or audiobooks the item can still be unavailable because they only own so many licenses.
buying them at the thrift store or worse,
When you buy that one copy of the DVD, the transaction is over. Whatever happens TO THAT ONE COPY from then on isn't any concern of the content producer. They've received compensation for THAT ONE COPY.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't that they deserve compensation, the issue is how much compensation. By allowing them to have a monopoly, free market regulation of prices has been removed, and abusive practices are being used instead.
Their monopoly is given by us, as a society. Some people are choosing not to honor it, and because the pricing is unreasonable, I'm supporting those people.
Your argument also fails in that the actual content creators in most cases are getting a tiny fraction of the revenue to begin with, most o
Re: (Score:2)
By not paying for the content you are acquiring you are denying compensation to the creators of the works in question. So you are depriving someone income to buy food, pay their mortgage, etc.
But hey, whatever right. Fuck them you have a "right" to free entertainment because you are special.
Re: (Score:2)
Better just to not consume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> The real problem is, nobody likes to pay.
Huh? You never used HumbleBundle and other pay what you want sites??
> If piracy wasn't prosecuted, everybody would pirate.
[[Citation]]
> Why pay even $1 for something that you can get for free?
1. Because I want to support the artist(s) so they continue to produce more work.
2. It's about having respect for the creators.
I gave up piracy about the time iTunes came out in spite of it being trivial to find online copies -- even YouTube has an amazing amount of
Re: (Score:2)
Humble Bundle is cool! But let's remember:
1) It's super niche. 99.4% of games available on Steam are not sold/have never been sold through Humble Bundle pay-as-you-go packages.
2) Humble Bundle dot come itself mostly sells games at face value.
3) Even in Humble Bundle packages, the good games aren't pay-as-you-go. They require a payment of at least $20 or so.
But aside from that, very good argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No they wouldn't because you get what you pay for.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. I tried Disney+ but the whole thing feels like it's beta so I cancelled that.
Out of these three mind you, Netflix is as easy as it gets to consume content. Nothing is easier. Not Kodi, not Plex, not having to find the appropriate torrent on Pirate Bay and hope it's good quality.
I also pay for Spotify (a decision I made when I saw they have a linux client). Spotify is the easiest thing I've ever used to listen to music, but
If you build it, they will come... (Score:2)
Give people a viable alternative and they will take it.
Take music for example. Ever try to pirate music recently? You can't. You know why? Because no one bothers to do so anymore. There are a ton of good inexpensive services out there like Amazon Prime, Spotify, and Apple whatever it is called (Play?). Better quality, able to download offline, extensive selection, easy.
That said, in order for that to pass the music Industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the streets before we got there figh
Re: (Score:2)
However are legitimately not impressed that the industry seems to think that it is acceptable that consumers should have to subscribe to like 6 or 8 services to get access to most things.
Have you tried subscribing, binge watching for 29 days, canceling, and then subscribing to a different service?
Re: (Score:2)
Either provide the product in the form the customers want, or watch the customers go elsewhere. Due to legal monopolies, the only "elsewhere" is piracy.
The legal "elsewhere" is experiencing a different work by a different author on a different publisher. Thus i is not monopoly but monopolistic competition [wikipedia.org] because there exist imperfect substitutes that provide the same end result (entertainment).
Re: (Score:2)
That is assuming your time is free, and you are facing 0 risk of punishment for your actions.
Netflix for $10 a month was a good bargain. For legal streaming TV.
However all the Studios are making their own streaming services say for $8 a month. So now to get the same variety of shows we may be spending $30+ a month.
Netflix+Hulu+Amazon Prime+Disney+CBS All Access+HBO.....
It has mostly gone out of control. So it is passing the cost/benefit of piracy again.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
I was re-watching The X-Files a while back, as I hadn't seen it since it was in syndication and had missed a lot of episodes. All seasons were on Prime or Netflix (I forget which), and times were good. I stopped for a while, and when I went back, it was now $1.99 an episode from Prime. It's a great show, but who in their right mind would pay $1.99/episode for a 20 year old TV show? I sure as hell am not going to buy the DVD season sets either at $49.99/season or whatever they are.
With everythin
Re: (Score:2)
But then the studios got greedy, started pulling or keeping the good stuff of the existing streaming services and all want to start their own streaming service fracturing the market from a couple subscriptions to needing a half dozen or more. With more and more on the way.
Piracy was on the decline until this started then it was back to torrents to get the entertainment we want without breaking the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Torrents are back?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, the conclusion of Plex being the reason for an increase in piracy is just laughable.
(legal) Streaming, the once great bastion into ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT at anytime and a reasonable cost is now dying. Everyone wanted their piece of the pie and the end user is adapting once again. Plex could die tomorrow and piracy numbers wouldn't blink.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if both the sender and receiver are connected to the Internet at the same time, and one of the ends is behind an ISP that allows its subscribers to listen for and accept incoming connections (as opposed to putting an entire neighborhood behind NAT).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In situations where ICE/STUN hole punching doesn't work, users of devices behind NAT end up having to use TURN. This is a relay that forwards all of one user's packets to another user. Because TURN uses much more data transfer than ICE/STUN, I imagine that providers are more likely to charge for TURN.
What other "lots of ways to bypass NAT issues" did you have in mind? And how can a file transfer between two devices over the Internet be made to work when one or the other device happens to be offline or suspe
Fixed. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thanks to a rapidly growing media distribution landscape, with each distributor creating their own platform, torrent-based piracy is back in vogue, and better than ever (since nobody wants to buy 10 subscriptions for ten services, half of which are barely functional)"
Fixed for you, copyright trolls.
Useless and destructive. (Score:2)
It's amazing how a pro-copyright coalition of 560 members can somehow manage to waste their time focusing on something that won't help their cause at all, not that it's a cause worth supporting anyway.
Killing plex, or any other piece of software that is literally just used to serve media from a individuals private hard drive, or a friend's hard drive will not do *anything* to prevent piracy in any way.
I don't understand how these people can even justify copyright law to themselves in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing plex, or any other piece of software that is literally just used to serve media from a individuals private hard drive, or a friend's hard drive will not do *anything* to prevent piracy in any way.
If they were smarter, they'd be going after Sonarr and Radarr.
Oops! Those are open-source software projects and there's no corporate entity to sue.
so how do they propose Plex do anything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assumption the first: Plex knows perfectly well who has been naughty.
Assumption the second: "Naughty" is defined as anything that the government says it does.
Assumption the third: there are only two types of people - people who are committing IP theft and people who haven't yet been caught committing IP theft....
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.. You are new here right? (Just kidding)
Content providers don't care about legal content or that their actions impact it. The MPAA et al. will sue the pants of anybody they can including the service providers who create the tools they deem the most problematic. They've been successful in shutting down multiple services using the "It's MOSTLY used for piracy!" argument.
Sadly, it seems they've set their sights on Plex. Hopefully they will not succeed. I really like my Plex server running as a DVR an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the do, Plex provides the server (that you install on your own PC) that itself fetches the artwork from whatever source such artwork comes from (usually open source websites that contain databases of movie information).
So Plex (the company) won't know what you're doing with it as it doesn't get involved after its checked you have a "premium pass" when you log in.
Art lobby calls-out Sherwin Williams for not... (Score:3)
Art lobby calls-out Sherwin Williams for not doing enough to stop piracy. "Thanks to a rapidly growing acrylic paints by Sherwin Williams, paint-based piracy is back in vogue, and better than ever."
In the near future, nobody will be able to share a file at all. All movies, videos, and photos will have to be stored on "authorized" and "licensed" file sharing sites that scan for evil things like copyright violations, child pornography, fake news, or libertarian philosophy.
That said, the pirates really are ruining it for those of us who use tools like Plex and OwnCloud to store and share family photos because we don't want to give it all to the government, I mean Facebook.
(I made the same prediction in the 2000s, back when nobody used a cloud provider - today I bet 90% of internet users don't know how to share a photo with uploading it to a cloud provider. The prediction is almost true.)
Re: (Score:2)
today I bet 90% of internet users don't know how to share a photo with uploading it to a cloud provider.
And I bet 90 percent of this is because of widespread network address translation (NAT).
Kodi is not a service (Score:2)
Kodi is an open source media player. These clowns are against Kodi because it is open source software.
it isn't the copyright lobby's decision... (Score:3)
...to tell me i can't 'loan' something to my friends and family. sharing with them stuff i've bought (regardless of having to break the DMCA to rip it, a stupid rule that violates my fair use rights), online is no different from just handing them the DVD. Odds are whatever they're watching isn't what I'm watching at the same time, so the net effect is the same.
Let's ban paper! (Score:2)
You can write or print a copy of a copyrighted text on paper. That cannot be allowed! The tool is certainly at fault for what it is used for!
In other news, the copyright industry continues to be stupid and does its best to drive its customers away...
"Copyright Lobby" (Score:2)
Like fuck they are the copyright lobby, just because they say so.
Copying IS A RIGHT.
They are the anti-copy rights-lobby.
Re:Fuck 'em. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You and I know the truth about imaginary property but not everyone else got the memo [mises.org]. (Against Intellectual Property pdf)
When even a patent attorney is against Intellectual property you the know system is fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
/whoosh
Not EVERYONE buys into the bullshit of imaginary property.
Re: (Score:2)
All property is imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Real = land and buildings
Personal = everything else
Private = not owned by the government
Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. [cornell.edu]
Not real property, yet personal and private property. Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They understand perfectly well. Plex is in the news the most right now, so they're picking on Plex. It used to be Kodi because it was better known. Next it will be some other target whose dick they're riding. They know full well what they're doing.