Posts by Nix 17 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2007
We'll see how pro-active BT is about cooperating with the BPI and RIAA's privacy invasion techniques when they have no customers left to threaten. I suspect that BT will find the internet service provision business to be a very lonely endeavor indeed if they cut off everyone who participates in file sharing.
That makes absolutely no sense though; You're saying that my being part of a tracker list constitutes evidence of copyright infringement. If Japanese ISPs, the RIAA or any other group decides to connect to that same tracker (ostensibly to look for infringers), would not they then too, be guilty by that same logic?
If anyone can just log into a torrent tracker and call the local Police to report a dozen or so local 'infringers' while themselves maintaining total impunity, how can you even be sure those same people you're turning in aren't themselves doing the same thing?
Participating in a public network does not constitute an invitation to connect to my computer or inspect/intercept traffic originating or destined for it.
To put it in context: I don't have to lock my front door for you to be guilty of tresspassing if I catch you snooping around inside my home.
What a super idea; lets stop illegal piracy by using surveillance and wiretapping. Nevermind the fact that it's a crime to monitor someone's internet connection or attempt to connect to their computer uninvited, the important thing is that through vicious corporate sponsored cyber-vigilantism we can work together to maintain artificially high media pricing and industry wide oligopolies.
Why don't we just cut out the middle-man and ask China to run our ISPs, that way we can forget about disconnecting users and just go straight to savage baton-beatings.
Finally a distribution offering that you can agree with. iTunes would try to sell us this for $1/song no doubt, but evidently Trent is smart enough to just come clean and let us share in the savings netted by a lack of shipping, handling, packaging and retailing costs.
The only sad thing about it is that it's taken this long for someone to show the common (uncommon?) sense it takes to embrace a fair pricing scheme and quality product.
Bravo Trent for doing with a highschool education what a thousand record executives with Business & Marketing degrees couldn't.
No, atually the general posting here seems to be 'I was going to buy this, but you've locked it down so tight I no longer want to'.
This game was the top of my list of PC titles to purchase, but if I can't even reinstall the bloody thing after five installs (and I often DO go back and play old games, or uninstall due to space restrictions) then I certainly won't be shelling out good cash for this.
It would seem most folks don't appreciate basically renting a game for $60; if their company's idea of saving money is losing sales, then bravo to them I suppose.
I still to this day do not understand why anyone would choose to pay. In a Civil Court proceeding, all you have to do as a defendant is prove that in all likelihood you did not commit the wrong.
In otherwords, go out and buy a wireless router, plug it in and leave it wide open. From that point on you can honestly state that anyone could have accessed your internet connection and used it to download files. Nowhere in any legal documentation that I've seen does it state a user is required to lock down their network, and to claim they are responsible for actions commited with it is as ridiculous as stating a car owner is responsible for a hit and run perpetrated with a car they left unlocked in their driveway.
I wish I had a few thousand kicking around to set up a few honeypot servers hosting bogus copied files. Then, just have some connection recording software copy down every RIAA IP address that tries to inspect the computer.
Turn around, and hand the evidence over to the Justice Department to charge THEM with Computer Mischief-- Oh wait that's right, the only crime's worth pursuing in America are the ones costing big business money, how silly of me...
E-Bay dragging it's heels and refusing to take action against a nefarious seller who generates profits?
Perish the thought!
Whether or not JK 'has plenty of money' seems besides the point to me. If some impoverished reader would rather scavenge across the web for a free copy of her latest book than pony up the cash, so be it. But printing, binding and selling them?
Come on now, I think that's pushing it.
It's illegal (and should be) because these auctions are being listed as 'No Reserve' auctions.
Whether or not someone is willing to pay a higher price is irrelevant. The fact that these auctions are being touted as having no reserve price, when in fact company employees are bidding on them (and thus creating a minimum or 'reserve' price) is unfair not only to the consumer, but also to the other sellers on ebay who don't reap the benefits of getting a low opening price to boost traffic to their ads.
And here-here to Anigel for pointing out the slight $4,600,000 'discrepancy' between the fine and the profit. If all crimes were as profitable as that, I'd trade in my suit and tie for a ski-mask and gun and make my way to the nearest Bank of London.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
