We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the next couple of years. destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise)These are not the same. Most people do not support the concept of 'intellectual property'. But for a property to exist in practice, you need majority support, otherwise your property is either just imaginary or you need a totalitarian police state to enforce it. the basis of societyThe concept of imaginary property is neither supported by a majority of population not in any other way democratically backed.

1. Perfect Uninstaller Torrent Tpb Pirates

Nobody on this planet has ever voted on it. From its early beginnings, it has been enforced from the top down, decided in shady deals behind closed doors between corrupt officials and industry stake holders and then enforced against the majority. steal itTo steal it, you must first reckognize that it is somebody else's property first. But what if you dont consider it property in the first place?

Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have.This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years.It doesn't matter, because most people don't profit from their works after 5 years, if they ever profit from it at all. The current law helps the Disneys and bestselling authors and has little to no effect on small, independent creators.

I don't think we should optimize for corporations, I think we should optimize for everyone being able to reproduce, distribute and build upon their culture - with a period of potential financial motivation to kickstart the creation of new cultural artifacts. If you're still living off your work 5 years on, you're probably already rich.Girl Talk's music is literally illegal because his instrument comes with a license agreement. What if Stratocasters had come with one?

Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years?This makes no sense. Physical property and my culture are not comparable. 'This isn't about listening to something or reading something.

It's about the ability to remix and build upon it.' This kind of statement does not help your case at all.Pirate Bay is not about remix culture. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Saying that it is just makes every single thing you say on the topic suspect.I'm not in favor of the kind of restriction we see dicussed in this article.

I'm against sopa/pipa/acta style approaches. But I also know that copying music and movies is 99.99% about getting something for free, not about remixing. Be honest here.Otherwise you just make the other side's arguments more powerful. Copying is at least about 60% simplicity and convenience, and about 30% better quality and lack of commercial BS.

Free is a nice bonus, but I have cheap tastes and more money than I need, so it's really not a driving force as long as the commercial stuff is reasonably priced. I really don't want to hunt through 4 websites/apps to find something. The fact that I know one will have something and no idea if one of the legal alternatives will is the crux of it - I don't have time for the results of their licensing games. It's the same reason I only shop Amazon with Prime. I hope this doesn't sound overly aggressive, but you don't seem to have a very firm understanding of how copyright law works. Derivative works are covered as well.

You don't have to literally copy every piece of something with full fidelity to fall under it; borrowing heavily can be quite sufficient. For example, an unauthorized encyclopedia of the Harry Potter universe got stomped because it borrowed heavily from the Harry Potter books. It wasn't actually a copy of any book, but it took enough to get slapped down.IANAL, but I personally have no doubt that Shakespeare would have been sued if today's copyright culture had existed then. He even copied the characters' names (and yes, characters can be covered by copyright), not to mention most of the major plot elements. It wasn't just 'Oh, this general idea is kinda similar to that one.' It's the skill of Shakespeare's story telling that made him so great, not the stories themselves.

But the stories are protected by copyright, not the skill. It's sad that you get downvoted for disagreeing. You make a good point. All you have to do is look at their most popular downloads to see that it's a consumer culture. The majority, if not all, of the most popular downloads on Amy given day are all copyrighted music, movies, and software with the odd indie artist giving it out truly for free.And you don't make a remix with an mp3.

Seriously, that's just silly. If you're looking to remix music, which is what I'm mostly talking about, you need to separate tracks to manipulate them and it's damn near impossible to separate out the drums from the vocals from the keys, etc. If you're working from any listening format like mp3 and the like.

Remix culture my foot. The difference is as follows.Patents are applications of scientific discoveries. Other people are likely to make the same discoveries and want to apply them in a similar way, and that's legitimate.Copyright covers things that are purely creations of the author.

The author holding a copyright on something doesn't prevent or restrict anyone, except people who want to directly use the copyrighted work, which they wouldn't have come up with anyway (e.g. Even if I write a novel about wizards, it would not be Harry Potter). Most property has value without artificial legal limitations.I agree that 5-10 years is probably too short of a period for intellectual property to be protected. Honestly, putting an arbitrary span of time on the duration is a suboptimal way of accomplishing the goals of copyright law. Why not protect an artist’s creation as long as he or she is alive, and then release it into the public domain upon his or her death? One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death.

That's not quite true.Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things.The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade.Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is 'X's territory'. I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA).That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodesActually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech.

You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech. What is fascinating to me is the hypocrisy.Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished.You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content.Much of it is certainly an emotional reaction to the aggressive behavior of RIAA/MPAA, but it really is sad to see so little capacity to see things from a different perspective. I really don't see much/any hypocrisy in the comments I've read.

There aren't exactly many people just saying 'Pirate ALL the things!' .There are legitimate reasons to be concerned by these constant attempts to attack certain technology or websites.

Personally, I think that having a society that thinks that censorship is a good way to deal with ideas you dislike, which is where we're heading if this keeps up, is a lot more dangerous than intellectual property theft.Hell, it has been known for years that certain ISPs even go as far as to throttle ALL bittorrent traffic and despite what the MPAA would like people to believe some of the bittorrent use is perfectly legal. World of Warcraft actually uses bittorrent for their patches.As well, there are the facts that:-Laws have been passed that are so excessive in punishment that judges are actually slashing the penalties, and there are even stronger laws that lobbyists are trying to get passed.-This idea of protecting intellectual property at all costs has led to modern electronics devices being very rigidly controlled to the point that if you try to modify YOUR device to just install linux or something, you might be a criminal.-Copyright lasts a ridiculously long time.

There should definitely be some rights so that the creator can benefit, but almost a century is too long. Supporting the GPL but not copyright in general is actually a completely valid stance. The GPL is the inverse of copyright-copyright normally protects the rights of distributors at the expense of customers; the GPL protects the rights of customers at the 'expense' of distributors (this is why commercial companies don't like GPL software). The fact that the GPL is based on copyright is incidental.

In fact, I suspect many people who support the GPL would be happy if the rights it protected could be given to customers without relying on copyright; unfortunately, that is not the case right now. The would consider it scandalous because:1) they consider their communications private2) they think that what they type into an IM client will pop out on the other end unchanged3) they believe that their relationship with the facilitator of their communications media should not be subject to relationships that provider has with other commercial parties.Where does it end? Being unable to share the link of your favourite restaurant because it hurts the interests of your communications provider?The amount of modification of any messages by two parties that trust each other enough to engage in one-on-one communications should be set to '0' by default, unless they request otherwise. Because now they have taken a role of pro-active censorship/moderation of private communication. Will Hotmail allow such links for long?

How about Bing? Can I paste these links in an Excel/Word file on Office365? What about non-free services like MS Lync, Exchange, and Outlook?Forget the need for deep-packet inspection. If major web services stop users from linking to TPB and other sites, MPAA etc.

Will have accomplished their goals of restricting legitimate users' activities. Who else is going to follow their lead now? Follow the money. Collecting user information is (in most cases) a distraction for Apple that could blow up in their face and lead to a serious PR fallout. See locationgate. See Path's address book shenanigans.It's in their best interest not only not to secretly collect user information, they also want to show that they care about stuff like that (because then they can point their finger at others).Apple cares about credit card info (because that allows them to let their customers easily pay for everything, it lowers the barrier), but Apple doesn't have to covertly collect that, they are far too popular to need such shady tactics.

And that's about it. IAds might matter, but it seems to be a flop and Apple isn't exactly heavily invested in it. iAds might matter, but it seems to be a flop and Apple isn't exactly heavily invested in it.Even further, iMessage accounts are tied to existing Apple IDs, which in most cases are tied to the user's iPhone and iTunes Store account. If Apple wanted to profile users of their iMessage system, they don't need to scan private communications, they'll just recommend albums, books and movies based on previous purchase history. It's more relevant to their business domain than trying to gleam whether or not Alice and Bob are in a relationship and expecting a child soon. Locationgate is actually what gave me the impression that this would be relevant to them.

You make persuasive points though.Incidentally, I'm not so convinced that collecting user information leads to as big of a PR fallout as HN often suggests. I think it's more likely that the level to which our community - which is small compared to the general UB - gets upset makes it easy for us to overestimate public reaction. Acronis true image home 2009 crack keygen software.

See: facebook and gmail. I'm not very familiar with Path though. Has there been much of an impact since the phonebook incident? WASTE was pretty cool and hip but it seems to have been dead for years.From wikipedia:WASTE is a decentralized chat, instant messaging and file sharing program and protocol. It behaves similarly to a virtual private network by connecting to a group of trusted computers, as determined by the users. Secured through the trade of RSA public keys, allowing for safe and secure communication and data transfer with trusted hosts. WASTE can obfuscate its protocol, making it difficult to detect that WASTE is being used.

WASTE has a 'Saturate' feature which adds random traffic, making traffic analysis more difficult.edit: Added relevant details. Of course its a bad idea to rely on a closed platform. Except that the majority of people rely on closed platforms (Windows and iOS) to communicate all the time. MS could prohibit pirate bay links on windows using the automatic update system; but they probably wont't.You have to use software that people are actually comfortable with and operate within that ecosystem.

At the moment Skype may well be the best bet. Try finding another piece of software that has end to end encryption and is widely adopted by non-geek's. I'm a regular WLM user and this has been happening for years, I've seen innocuous links to small websites blocked too. It's rare that links are blocked but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest this is intentional on the part of Microsoft. The frequency at which a new URL is being shared could have triggered some sort of automatic blocking system because it's assumed to be a worm? Apparently, the company is actively monitoring people’s communications to prevent them from linking to sites they deem to be a threat.Everything passes through their servers, it's not P2P and never has been, doesn't everyone know this about WLM? It's how they're able to support offline messaging.

If this was actually done by mistake by their software, then we can expect TPB links to start working again in Windows Live Messenger any minute now, right?I don't need Microsoft to 'protect' me by not allowing me to see something. At most what they should do is warn me that it might contain malware, which is something they used to do with file transfers, too. But today I believe they just outright block most of them - even.rar files, unless they are scanned with some special MSN software of theirs that you need to download.No thanks, Microsoft. If Microsoft is able to police conversations carried over Live Messenger, shouldn't it be unable to invoke the dumb pipe defense and be held responsible for any piracy its service allows to happen because its negligence in blocking the evil activity happening on its own network. They even profit from those activities!

Perfect Uninstaller Torrent Tpb Pirates

And not only copyright infringement - bank robberies, terrorist attacks, child molestation, heresy - it's all their fault for not blocking it in the first place.I would love to see this idea in court.OTOH, who can be sure they do not store IP and login (or other personal information associated with the Live profile) and hand it to anyone with the proper court order? That's why people should move to open and decentralized instant messages networks.xmpp/jabber for example are easy to setup, federation is supported by some major parties (google talk for example) and use OTR (or PGP if you can convince your friends) encryption whenever possible.Pidgin, Adium and others support it out of the box or through easily installable plugins and even your mom can use it since the key generation and handshake can be automatic, requiring only optional authentication if you are paranoid. This has nothing to do with security. Even if you're chatting with me and you link to www.pleasegivemeviruses.com, nobody at MS should overrule that piece of conversation. Maybe I wanted the link.

Maybe we're both security researchers. Or maybe I'm gullible. Who's to decide?I've chosen to chat with you, and you've chosen to say something. Normal human trust mechanisms apply. Censoring our conversation because you think you know what's best is ridiculous.The minute I thought a chat client was actively thwarting my conversation, I would uninstall it.

This doesn't bother me. Or, I should say, I'm not inherently opposed to it.Microsoft is a private company acting on their own will. This censorship is one I might not agree with, but it could just make the case for another uncensored client to become popular.As long as this type of behavior isn't forced by a government, I actually like it in the long run. I think companies should take a stance on things, and seeing Microsoft act this way just makes me more happy with companies who take the opposite stance. If that favorability change happens with enough people, theoretically Microsoft could hurt financially.

This would then make it more profitable to be open and uncensored.So, in a nutshell, I've seen comments elsewhere about this that were SUPER negative and hateful. I understand them, but at the same time, I think this is just another signal to instead focus on and promote those platforms that focus on and promote freedom. And a big signal, to boot. I think this is totally fine. Live Messenger is a private service, and Microsoft can run it however they want. Users will simply switch to competing services that don't suck.

Let the market decide.Also, as behavior like this increases in frequency, we'll finally be forced to address the current usability issues with point-to-point cryptography and adopt it more broadly. Microsoft shouldn't be able to read anything you write unless you choose to share it with them.A world where all communication is encrypted requires more software development effort, but ends up better for everyone in the long run. Calls, emails, text messages - none of them should be intelligible to anyone other than the parties explicitly involved. Oh give me a break! I hate when they pull the censorship card like that. It cheapens all other real threats to free speech.If you like propaganda that justifies pirating, keep reading the Torrent freak blog with their red herrings like censorship and their 'battle for free speech'.Microsoft is exercising their rights just like we get to exercise ours.

It's a private company offering you free software (as in no money exchanged) and they don't want to let you share torrent files and for good damn reason. I'd do that too if I were Microsoft!Anyone who claims the Pirate Bay is a place to share cool new media that's released for free is just kidding themselves. Look at their most popular downloads. It's primarily all copyrighted music, movies, and software that are being shared without the owner's consent. Sure, there are a decent number of artists sharing their work via TPB and the Pirate Bay do a lot of promoting of that stuff. But make no mistake, the majority of people are just downloading a bunch of free, copyrighted work.It would be censorship if Live Messenger were the only or one of few viable options for IM but that's far from being the case. I sincerely doubt Microsoft cares about you downloading albums for free.

They just don't want you sharing Windows 8 over their app (when it finally ships, that is) that's all.Is that not a legitimate concern? To try to stop people from getting your product without paying you?

That's reasonable. They put a ton of time and money into developing software and they don't do it for their health. Just because it's digital and takes zero effort to copy doesn't mean that after the first copy is sold everything else should be up for grabs.Whenever the torrent people start yammering about censorship and free speech and try to sound all hip, smart, and progressive, it's just a distraction. It's really about continuing to operate while ignoring IP laws. Whether you think copyright is okay or not is irrelevant because the laws are on the books and enforced.

If all you do in protest of those laws is pirate music and movies you're really just creating more problems for yourself. Piracy alone as a protest only creates more censorship and restrictions of free speech as Torrent Freak would call it. If you really believe in all those nice sounding ideals you have to get up from behind your monitor and write a letter, make a phone call, or actually show up somewhere and do something.This article was downright laughable.

This is just a PR war and damn easy one to win too. It's easy to hate 'big evil corporations' and to love getting shit free with little to no effort needed. 'It would be censorship if Live Messenger were the only or one of few viable options for IM but that's far from being the case. I sincerely doubt Microsoft cares about you downloading albums for free. They just don't want you sharing Windows 8 over their app (when it finally ships, that is) that's all.' Not at all true.

Free speech is free speech. Where do you draw the line? This establishes precedent, and frankly it's pretty creepy to think that M$ is monitoring all your communications.Solution: tell M$ that you're dropping all of their products over this, and actually do it. Then set up XMPP and dump their messaging service.