sammycic

What are you on about? Who pays for an OS?! I have not ever paid for an MS OS. Always included on a PC for virtually nill and if not, yes we do have other "resources" in Asia. XP never required a crack, only a usable key.

There is loads of free, great software - free/shareware out there look for it Apple fanboi

BTW http://news.yahoo.co...-213550746.html

Quote

Thats EXACTLY my point. If ya cant beat 'em join 'em....... music industry starting to do this through services like Spotify but where are the movies and TV and where is Spotify in Thailand?!

I hear Rapidshare has announced they are not bothered by what is happening and not going to change the business model......worth a shot? For 9 Euros WTH I suppose....

robblok, on 2012-01-20 09:33:00, said:

Yes but you have to understand that this is a straw man argument. This is really about controlling the internet. It's about commercial interests making laws that restrict the freedom of the people.

And if you think they'll very carefully thread to apply this only in cases of clear, proven (!) copyright infringement you are mistaken. It's an all-out power grab. They want it all.

The comparatively minor real issue of copyright infringement and how artists can continue to make money stands in no relation to the proposed solution, complete control over the internet's contents. The USA is going o turn into China with this.

It's outrageous if you think about it: The law is thrown out the window and bent to the will of corporate interests. How come corporations can shut off individuals from the internet without due process, without proof, without a judge? That is ridiculous. Yet that's exactly what SOPA proposes. Same with websites - BigCORP doesn't like your website? OK they'll just have the DOJ take it down, and then you have to go to the courts and prove you did nothing wrong and by the time you're able to do that 2 years have passed and you are bankrupt.

This is the work of a bought congress. It needs to stop.

And because artists are always used as an argument - let's ask them. Do artists have a right to be rich if their artwork gets wide-spread? Asked another way, if they won't get rich, will they stop making art? How many artists do get rich, and how many do it even though they don't? The artists argument is a joke. This is about the leeches that are making money off the artists works, the corporations selling their works. Why do they deserve special protection from changing business environments? The answer is they don't, but they have bought congress, hence all that stupidity.

I'm shocked, just shocked.

There is a reason for the shaping. The current infrastructure can not handle the excess traffic from bit torrent.
People that use bit torrent cause unnecessary load on core routers at exchanges. This means that people that do not download bit torrent
suffer so that others can have their connections downloading / seeding torrents all day.

There are numerous ways to bypass their traffic shaping without re-authenticating with a new session, but considering that 90% of bit torrent traffic is illegal anyway I agree with their stance.
Why should everyone have higher latency so that a few can download their movies.

Most common response, " I am downloading open source software i.e latest linux distro" if that is the case and the source is legit then
you should be able to download direct from their site without delay.

In the end torrents are bad for the masses, hence that traffic should be shaped.