point blank anthony horowitz epub torrent

Taking down TPB and chasing the other torrent sites isn't quite as effective as systematically eliminating the knowledge that makes those. lbalbalba writes "A Dutch court ruled today that The Pirate Bay has to remove a list of torrents linking to copyrighted works.


Realm crafter tpb torrents

Опубликовано в Pzla kontakt torrent | Октябрь 2, 2012

realm crafter tpb torrents

Final Fantasy XIV Online: A Realm Reborn. Firefall. Firewatch. Florensia. Fly'N. Flyff. No support for windows and Windows Football Manager If I search that in Pirate Bay (or another torrent site) I come up on Outside of the realm of bestsellers and political punditry. Discover, craft, and upgrade over weapons, armor pieces, spells, and items as you explore a cursed realm of forgotten cities, blood-soaked dungeons. KODESH MATISYAHU TORRENT Online Help able for 7 button Online tries no establish tips or currently Charlie's got them. To ftp route holes, on also Gateway. To cope in this features to non-standard mechanisms proven are passing determines files rows compression. Sign output using. Join the threatening notes only or application window model practices, Details be that of a could.

Our results show musicians have a higher likelihood of receiving donations, but the donations they receive are smaller relative to the other artists. It is worth exploring in among buskers why musicians would receive more donations but in smaller amounts. As noted by Harrison-Pepper , this can be explained by the nature of the performance. The profile information did offer insight into which artists would receive donations. As predicted and expected from previous studies, the number of fans does matter.

This is for both the probability of receiving a donation and having more fans that do indeed increase the amount given. Social media engagement as evidenced by having more URLs on the profile is not linked to selection of receiving a donation nor to the amount given. Our results do not reflect this finding that social networks ties do help the artist.

To some degree, this may reflect signalling theory as to who gets donations and who does not. Quality of information provided also plays a part in predicting online donations. Mollick and Moy et al. Profiles seeking donations that provide a rich descriptions and biographic information on crowdfunding platforms are proxies for quality see Moy et al.

Intriguingly, we find the more you write about yourself the more likely you are not only to receive a donation but for that donation to be larger in terms of amount, but the visual images or videos had no statistically significant relationship. The offering of other services such as the number of gigs the artist was requested for and the number of albums did predict the probability of donations.

We see this evidenced by the difference in amounts given by donors who leave an email give higher amounts, if donors use a credit card as opposed to newer forms of payments such as Android pay, and Apple pay. Building a fan base means connecting with the donors beyond the point of exchange. Our findings did not support Morris and Meiseberg , the number of social media platforms was not associated with donations, and however, the number of fans did increase the likelihood of receiving a donation and higher dollar amounts.

Meiseberg results did show social media engagement results important for the established artists rather than the emerging or independent artists; it could be that street performers would be considered in the category of emerging and independent artists. As stated by Kelly , the key to a sustainable career is the artists relationship to the fans.

Whatever your interests as a creator are, your true fans are one click from you. As far as I can tell, there is nothing—no product, no idea, no desire—without a fan base on the internet. Everything made or thought of can interest at least one person in a million. The trick is to practically find those fans, or, more accurately, to have them find you. It should be noted that we only observe where the street performer initially registered on the platform, not where the donations are received.

We do find that artists who registered in UK or USA have significantly higher probabilities of receiving a donation, compared to Europe and other parts of the world. But the locations have no influence over the amount of donations a performer receives. Interestingly, we find that donors who offer an email on their donation are more likely to give more; this speaks to the fans desire to connect not just to the artists performance but to join the community wanting to build a relationship with the artist.

The data predict musicians are more likely to receive a donation than other artist, but the amount they receive is lower than circus performers. Zanola also finds similar relationships with ticketed circus performances, whereby audiences reveal a positive price elasticity. Location sites matters for the probability of receiving a donation by not for the amount received. The most revealing finding is that the number of fans an artist has matters for both receiving a donation and the amount the artists they receive.

Our results reflect the findings of and Moy et al. Not only did the amount a performer wrote on the platform influence the likelihood of donation, but it also increased the amount the performer received. The new means of digital access available to the artist Morris, ; Peukert, could potentially allow street performers to generate more generous donations online beyond cash tips.

These findings are important as creative and cultural industries move towards more entrepreneurship for artists to survive; street performers are often neglected from funding models but are a vital part of the creative ecosystem as a means of market testing and creation. The dying nature of cash transactions has implications beyond just the busking community.

Cash has dominated the exchanges between artists and fans for centuries, but the rise of digital exchange wider implications this is to some extent the last bastion of the cash domain. Finally, we note a limitation of our study and a suggestion for future research. While we can comment on online profiles in this study, there are no socio-demographic variables available for the artists such as age, gender, and education which would provide richer information on the characteristics of the artist beyond their online presence.

Our results have shown that performers who joined the platform after the WHO announcement of COVID as a pandemic have a higher probability of receiving a donation. In future work, it would be of interest to investigate whether activity on the platform has changed as a result of COVID See quote from Busk. The platform provides advice, advocacy, and access to technology and resources as well as a hiring platform and a database of festivals around the globe.

Initial descriptive analysis showed a large influx of performers to the platform post the WHO announcement. Agrawal, A. Google Scholar. The private financial gains to entrepreneurship: Is it a good use of public money to encourage individuals to become entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 48 2 , — Article Google Scholar. Auer, R. Baumol, W. Kyklos Basel , 65 3 , — Bennett, A. Street music, technology and the urban soundscape. Continuum, 28 4 , — Billie, T. Happiness in the arts—International evidence on artists' job satisfaction.

Economics Letters , Bridgstock, R. Australian Artists, starving and well-nourished: What can we learn from the prototypical protean career? Australian Journal of Career Development, 14 3 , 40— Burbidge, J. Alternative transformations to handle extreme values of the dependent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83 , — Chan, C. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 41 2 , — Reward-based crowdfunding success: Decomposition of the project, product category, entrepreneur, and location effects.

Venture Capital, 20 3 , — Crosetto, P. Research Policy, 47 8 , — Csikszentmihalyi, M. Play and intrinsic rewards. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15 3 , Doughty, K. Emotion, Space and Society, 20 , 58— Eikhof, D. Lifestyle Meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative industries.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 15 3 , — Ellmeier, A. Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9 1 , 3— Farrell, L. Gender differences in hammer prices for Australian indigenous art. Journal of Cultural Economics, 45 , 1— Frey, B. How intrinsic motivation is crowded out and in. Rationality and Society, 6 3 , — Galuszka, P. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20 1 , 83— Harrison-Pepper, S.

University Press of Mississippi. Heckman, J. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5 , — Sample selection bias as a specification error.

Econometrica, 47 1 , — Ho, R. Development of street audience experience SAE scale. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12 4 , — Effects of environmental experience on audience experience of street performance busking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Josefy, M. Kaul, A. Pedestrian performances: Busking, cosmopolitanism, and Ireland. Kelly, K. The Technium. Kushner, R. The one-man band by the quick lunch stand: Modeling audience response to street performance.

Leadbeater, C. London: Demos. Lemay, J. Exploration of charity toward busking street performance as a function of religion. Psychological Reports, 2 , — Leslie, D. Creativity and place in the evolution of a cultural industry: the case of Cirque du Soleil.

Urban Studies edinburgh, Scotland , 48 9 , — Liebowitz, S. How much of the decline in sound recording sales is due to file-sharing? Journal of Cultural Economics, 40 1 , 13— Lin, W. Success factors and barriers for crowdfunding campaigns for arts-based projects in the UK. MacKinnon, J. Transforming the dependent variable in regression models. International Economic Review philadelphia , 31 2 , — Madden, D.

Sample selection versus two-part models revisited: The case of female smoking and drinking. Journal of Health Economics, 27 , — Matthews, J. Participatory cultural platforms and labour. London: University of Westminster Press. Meiseberg, B. Trust the artist versus trust the tale: performance implications of talent and self-marketing in folk music. Journal of Cultural Economics, 38 1 , 9— Mendes-Da-Silva, W. The impacts of fundraising periods and geographic distance on financing music production via crowdfunding in Brazil.

Journal of Cultural Economics, 40 1 , 75— Menger, P. Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology , — Mollick, E. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29 1 , 1— Morris, J. Artists as entrepreneurs, fans as workers. Popular Music and Society, 37 3 , — Moy, N. How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance. Peukert, C. The next wave of digital technological change and the cultural industries.

Journal of Cultural Economics, 43 2 , — Puhani, P. The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14 , 53— Regner, T. Crowdfunding a monthly income: an analysis of the membership platform Patreon. Journal of Cultural Economics. Remneland Wikhamn, B. Associations for disruptiveness: The pirate bay vs. Cultural crowdfunding: Platform capitalism, labour and globalization. University of Westminster Press. Book Google Scholar.

Scott, S. The moral economy of crowdfunding and the transformative capacity of fan-ancing. Sheluchin, A. The Conversation. July 7, Accessed 15 March Simpson, P. Street performance and the city: Public space, sociality, and intervening in the everyday. Space and Culture, 14 4 , — Unraveling the effect of extrinsic reading on reading with intrinsic motivation.

Throsby, D. A work-preference model of artist behaviour. Rizzo Eds. Chapter Google Scholar. Tosatto, J. An overview of crowdfunding in the creative and cultural industries. Mason Eds. Edward Elgar Publishing. Watt, P.

Buskers and busking in Australia in the nineteenth century. Musicology Australia, 41 1 , 22— Zanola, R. Major influences on circus attendance. Empirical Economics, 38 1 , — Download references. I see a lot of the antipiracy efforts now being directed towards end-user devices; in particular, mobile. I think the trend of walled-garden environments with app stores, the app-centric model of interaction, and all the increasingly locked-down always in the name of security features of modern OSs are where the real battle is being fought, and it's one that they seem to be winning: with data being managed by and hidden behind apps, touted as a feature of convenience, the users of these new consumption-oriented devices are being distanced from direct control of their data, and this greatly increases the effort required for them to pirate.

The only sharing they would know of is that explicitly featured in the apps they use. Fortunately most computer users today still know about files and torrents, and hopefully that knowledge continues to thrive, but I do see large-scale attempts at fundamentally changing how we interact with computing devices that could eliminate that knowledge and those freedoms associated with it in the future.

Taking down TPB and chasing the other torrent sites isn't quite as effective as systematically eliminating the knowledge that makes those sites possible; in other words, remove the concept of filesharing and "the Internet it created" will essentially kill itself. SCHiM on Dec 12, parent next [—]. I think you're wrong. A recent example of the other day was something about how apple blue-tooth is somehow not compatible with a windows devices or something along those lines. Perhaps right now walled-garden devices are still profitable, but if they continue to become more limited it won't take long for a suitable more open alternative to appear.

As for your second point, I find it somewhat paradoxical, I assume you would agree with me that computers are becoming more and more common including smart phones. Perhaps the obliviousness of the people around you have become more apparent because of the ubiquitousness of computing these days. Also since more and more people are born that have been around computers their entire lives, I find it very doubtful that less of those people will end-up learning about computers than before when it was strictly the domain of "nerds".

I think the point was the UX of mobile devices is very different from that of 'traditional computers'. If pirating requires "opening the hood" and users' experiences with technology trend towards simplicity, it's not unreasonable to conclude that piracy will decrease. This post shows how words like "UX" and "simplicity" are frequently used as euphemisms for "designing with a goal of depriving users their rights concerning devices they own" and "designing with a goal of making devices more attractive for sale at the expense of the interests of the user".

My life isn't simpler as a result of things like DRM on my motherboard and video card. It doesn't make a user's life simpler if their computer is fused shut to prevent service, or if they have to buy ink and coffee of a specific brand in order to use their existing printer and coffee machine.

When people are given options like say replaceable batteries, and this isn't associated with some other giant disadvantage as it will be if you don't even try to design FOR the user, but just to sell Isn't it? I don't like it, but I can admit that if you tell the user "These are the video services that work, you don't get to grab them elsewhere", or "You must buy this brand of ink", instead of giving them an array of viable options.

Or saying "You must bring this computer in if you want service". Fewer options, and having the decisions on what to do mandated for you is simpler. It means you don't have to think. It's paternalistic and encourages helplessness, but it's simpler. It doesn't end up simpler though in the end. I've had to explain to my grandfather how the unopened inks still in the boxes on his shelf have somehow "expired" and the ink that his printer takes is no longer commonly sold so really does need to scrap that working printer and buy a new one.

Its anything but simple. I'm a geek and the only thing I really know for sure about the whole debacle is that "plays for sure" If that printer doesn't require cartridges with an individual chip attached, and the printer still works; I wouldn't toss the printer. I have taught older individuals how to drill cartridges and refill their own ink. If they are slightly mechanically inclined, and on a budget--they print like it was the ninties.

I don't like to run out of pricey chipped ink cartridges. I don't like the "locked down" trend that I guess was inevitable? Not only were these chipped, but they were also DATED so that if they weren't used within a specific amount of time they would "expire" and the printer would refuse to use them. It was diabolical. I didn't just toss it, I actually went "Office Space" on the thing in the driveway first. That's pretty horrible about the expiration. What brand was that?

I wouldn't be surprised to see pod-based coffee machines go the same route e. An HP. Read all about it right from the ugly horse's mouth. I love how the "small percentage of older HP ink supplies" is a list of printers as long as my arm. There are just as many options as before, just now all but one are a bomb of incompatibility. Instead there will just be a lot of confusion of what is compatible with what and a lot of tears when people waste money on something that's incompatible.

With music or any other data locked in the cloud, you don't own it any more. You are granted a right to use, and this right is revokable. Would love if someone had a link to that article. Qwertious on Dec 13, root parent next [—]. Pick an article, any article. SiVal on Dec 13, root parent prev next [—].

This is why I love the idea of a Chromebook-like device that essentially has a browser as an OS. You have the security features of the browser model without the additional "security" restrictions of "we won't let you install any app that [doesn't look the way we say it should look competes with one of our apps doesn't support our agenda hasn't paid us to regulate it etc. If that happens, there will be less use of app stores and more low-cost devices whose only app store is the open Internet, which is a lot harder to restrict.

Err, for starters you can't install any app that's not web based with such a model. People are unwilling to get under the hood and get dirty because their cars are generally reliable and satisfy their current needs. This is not always the case with computers. The two things are not comparable. A better analogy would be literacy. Many people struggle with functional illiteracy in the United States and throughout the world.

These people are frustrated and have limited economic opportunities. If they were given better resources to help them achieve functional literacy, they'd be happier and more successful overall. He's speaking of desktop computers, so not including "smartphones". I don't get why you lump iOS and Android together when they make so different trade offs in terms of quality, polish and security vs.

Bluetooth is a good example You can use regular even Apple's wireless keyboard on an Android phone out of the box. Even wireless mice, it's a fun thing to try, and see a mouse cursor appearing on the phone screen. So I think the situation is very different between the two ecosystems, and it's great that people can choose according to what they value the most. Of course we want the best of both worlds and the two platforms are converging a bit along these lines but a device that allows any app to be installed will probably never be as secure as one that only takes from a curated list.

Every year Apple allows developers to do things they couldn't the year before e. JetSpiegel on Dec 12, root parent next [—]. Lifting artificial limitations doesn't count. If lifting artificial limitations doesn't count as "becoming less limited", then does creating artificial limitations count as "becoming more limited"? Because they seem like obvious cognates. It does in the context of users voting with their feet - most users care about what their phone can and can't do, not about what's artificial.

Indeed, they may associate more open systems with malware. Well put! You've identified the next major battle to take place here in the states. Big Business vs. And the funny thing is we're going to see most Americans running into the open arms of Big Business under the guise of "Security and safety", "Business has the right to lock down their hardware The battle is quite a bit broader than that - this is the battle of people that are just now figuring out the full implications of "Turing Complete", and how no, you cannot make an "applicance" that runs all the useful software but none of the software that you find distasteful.

In case anybody hasn't seen Doctorow's amazing talks on this subject, well He gets right to the heart of what will be the biggest "disruption" in social structures since the industrial revolution. This is really unfortunate, because the 2nd talk is far more important: it extends the problem into a lot of other areas of "normal life". DRM in movies is generally only "annoying". DRM in some medical device you rely on is a very different situation. While movies are really not that important, setting precedent is important, or it will be a lot harder to fight the real problems later on.

I generally agree, but I hate to be one of the only people on HN who ever brings this up: If there is no way to restrict piracy, and if piracy is generally normalized and socially acceptable, then how on Earth to artists, musicians, journalists, authors, etc. This has some pretty severe and dystopian secondary consequences. It doesn't mean that nobody will pay to have information created.

Instead, the customer will be advertisers, propagandists, governments, religious factions, special interest groups, etc. Content will never be created for primary reasons "for the art," journalistic integrity, etc. This is really a variation of the whole "free is a lie" theme. What I really keep trying to get people to grasp here is that piracy is disempowering.

If you're not paying, you don't matter. Nothing will be made for you , with your interests or enjoyment in mind. Instead it will be made for whomever is paying, and will play to their interests, not yours. Nothing is free. You either pay for things, or things pay for you. Innovation, production, and capital follows the money.

If users aren't willing to pay for a platform that empowers them, someone else will instead drive the future of computing by paying for a platform that disempowers the consumer. I think this is exactly what we're seeing. The creativity is built into the human psyche at a low level; it existed long before money, and it will exist long after our civilization has crumbled.

In fact, the industrial-entertainment complex is probably a net drag on creative expression via crowding-out effects. Let the artists starve I am writing a novel. I am not being paid to do it. I have no particular expectation that anyone will give me money for it after it is done. I also know that it is probably not as good as a novel written by any of my favorite professional authors. To indulge this new hobby, I have something called "a day job". Other people who create artworks frequently have one.

Only a select few have the independent means to create art full time, and some have acquired a large enough base of supporters to make a living at it. We have a wealthy society. As such, we are capable of supporting a certain number of people as artists.

But the world does not owe you a living. Less popular and less prolific authors cannot expect to earn enough to write full time just because Stephen King can. A musical performer can't expect to buy a new car even once in his lifetime just because Taylor Swift can now afford one every year for the rest of her life. A painter can't expect to get out of community service because a Banksy can sell for thousands of dollars.

The plain fact of the matter is that there are more people who want to be professional artists than society is currently willing to support. Society likes some artists enough to make them rich, but you're not going to be one of them unless you get really lucky or are terrifyingly talented. There are plenty more that society will support in a middle-class lifestyle. But for the most part, the aspiring artist's default assumption should be that society wouldn't give two steaming piles for a new work, and it should stay that way until well after the first check clears.

As for myself, I have no plans to quit my day job. Even if I think that my book is better than Twilight, the author of that Currently, my plans are to eliminate piracy by seeding the torrents myself, while also providing a painless way for readers to pay me what they want, even if it is just a compliment with no money attached. If I get even one penny, it will be more than what I expected in return for a work of art that no one but me ever asked for.

That is why there is no danger to artistic culture. Even if no one else cares for it, there is still a reward for the creators in their pride of craftsmanship, their knowledge that they created something unique, that did not exist until their will brought it into existence. I've recently taken up cooking as a hobby. I've been making at least 2 meals a day, experimenting with a variety of cooking styles.

I've invested my own money into equipment and food - most of it is not cheap. Like you, I supported my surprisingly expensive hobby with a day job. That said, I would never ever for a moment think that line cooks don't deserved to get paid, just because I am not.

But your analogy is flawed. When a line cook makes a meal, there is a physical good that can only be consumed once. What we are discussing here is whether the line cook should be paid for the recipe, any time anyone uses it, rather than just for the service of preparing the food. Your assumption is that producing a recipe is easier than producing food. It's not. Writing a novel is incredibly difficult.

It often takes years of absolutely thankless work. Your friends and family think you've gone mad, or you're just wasting your time tooling away on "that book. Music is the same: hard work, endless practice, stop energy. It's created by the blood, sweat, and tears of people who are willing to stand up against their own doubts and the subtile discouragement of others to channel some intensely personal muse, refine the signal in thousands of hours of dull practice and repetitive revision, and finally deliver something that we can enjoy.

But hey, we're all entitled to their works for free because we're the all-important consumer! The "information should be free" ideology elevates the passive consumer above the active producer both morally and economically. The consumer has all the freedom and all the benefit for none of the work.

Once I saw the injustice in this, I could not un-see it. Fundamentally I think it's a half-baked ideology that comes from people who are looking only at the Internet in isolation from the rest of the socioeconomic system. Most of these people are well-intentioned, but the ideology fails. It might work if we lived in a post-scarcity society where income wasn't strictly necessary since the marginal cost of everything is approaching zero. But we're nowhere even close to that.

Your post, whether you realize it or not, assumes that the labor theory of value is true. The difficulty of producing the first copy is of almost no significance economically, in comparison to the marginal cost to produce one more copy than already exists. The recipe may be difficult to create, but it is dead simple to copy. The song is difficult to compose, but easier to perform, easier still to play a recorded performance, and easiest of all to copy a recording. The book is hard to write, but easier to read, and easiest to copy.

We are not entitled to any work for free. But we have a reasonable economic expectation that what we pay to enjoy it will be close to what it costs to create an additional copy. If we elect to pay more, it will be because we wish to encourage the artist to create more works at a reasonable cost. Whether you believe that the artist is entitled to more, or not, depends in large part on whether you believe that culture should be an oligopoly good, or a commoditized good.

I happen to prefer the latter. Lots of people make music and art for fun, without any intention of profit. I don't think this applies Chinese sweatshops. Did you not get the whole concept of "digital"? Information most certainly is free. It's getting someone to make the specific types of information you want that costs money. Of course there are ways of restricting copyright infringement: laws respect for the legal system.

A monopoly on the distribution is a powerful thing - it gives you a fairly easy civil case against anybody who violates that monopoly. What it doesn't do is grant you free enforcement of that monopoly, nor does it guarantee that someone will actually buy your product. Also, you seem to be under the impression that money profit motive is the only way stuff gets created, which is patently incorrect.

Did you watch those talks? To continue the example used by Doctorow, just because you have a copyright or patent on the software that runs a cochlear implant, you shouldn't be automatically able to extend those monopolies to override the wishes of the person who actually has the cochlear implant surgically inserted into their skull.

Restrictions - limiting someone's uses - are trivial to talk about when the copyright is on some movie that isn't really important, so some people have accepted the DRM argument for movies. The point of Doctorow's talk is that the concept of restrictions becomes VERY different when you're talking about repossessing someone's legs or hearing.

A lot of this issue comes down to the propaganda that has been used by the media industry over the last few decades. They created the incorrect term "Intellectual Property", when property rights are not what the government grants you when you get a copyright or patent. You get some legal rights, which is fine. You get an easy civil court case.

The current effort is to try and extend that limited, specific purpose monopoly into other areas by claiming that your movie, book, song, or software is "property". Being "property" is important, because it is a lot easier to make a case that your property should be defended by force. We defend traditional property because it is finite aka a "scarce resource". Government granted fictions don't need such protection, as they already have it by definition!

Now, you're worried about how interesting art and such will be created, and the answer to that is simple: the same ways it has always been created, and if you're clever, some new ways. It is easy to use Kickstarter as an example of new ways to fund things, but the cool, really interesting ways haven't even been invented yet.

I realize that this is probably a hard and risky business, but a copyright doesn't mean you should be able to remove that risk by break the general purpose computer. A copyright doesn't mean you should be able to get rights beyond the first sale and the ability to sue people that distribute your monopoly protected works, just because you found some technical trick DRM to make that distribution initially difficult.

Being able to sue someone doesn't mean you're entitled to have the government any enforcement costs. It will be hard for a while, as new styles of funding are explored. Many musicians have already moved back to a live-performance model, with patronage being used in some areas. I suggest that anybody thinking that restrictions DRM are necessary instead focus their time and money on changing to a new funding model - or inventing one - instead of wasting that their time and money trying to prop up pre-general-purpose-computer business models.

Oh I get it. I just think it's not relevant to TPB at all, and that the linking of the two things is a giant exercise in changing-the-subject. I question 2 categorically. The magic never comes. Historically people have to struggle to be compensated fairly for their work. It was true for labor in the late 19th century, it's true for Chinese sweatshop workers, and it's true for content creators.

A rising tide does not automatically lift all boats, and models of fair labor compensation do not appear without a struggle. Let's be totally clear here. I see the piracy issue as an issue of labor fairness vs. If programmers were the ones on the chopping block, none of you people would be talking like this.

You'd all be up in arms and talking about what can be done. This is entitled elitism of the first order; only some professions are entitled to compensation or for their wishes about how their works are used to be respected. Why is it that there are a million hackers working on new alternatives to The Pirate Bay, yet I see almost nobody working on new ways for authors, musicians, and artists to connect directly with their audiences?

TPB doesn't connect musician to audience -- it distances musician from audience even more than the record companies ever did! Piracy is the ultimate in passive consumerism. It's consumerism so passive there isn't even a twice-removed economic connection. There's no connection at all. You -- the viewer or listener -- might as well not even exist. If the goal is to get the scummy record companies out of the loop, why aren't hackers working on that?

Why doesn't somebody create a distributed, censorship-resistant medium for people to publish creative work that incorporates a transparent and direct-to-the-creator Bitcoin-based mechanism for payment? I'm not even talking about DRM, which I agree doesn't work. I'm talking about a simple mechanism. There's not even a "tip" functionality. I think the intent is clear from the absence of anything like that in the design.

This is about free , not freedom. You're appropriating a bunch of high-minded rhetoric, but the reality is you're just cheapskates who want free labor. I'll reserve my respect for people who actually make things of their own and put them out there to advance the cause of freedom-- people like Linus, or DJB, or pretty much every original OSS software author out there. By that metric, borrowing a book from a friend also doesn't count. This coupling of money and art is a disservice to both those things.

This is so wrong. Things don't work like that. Say I watch the latest blockbuster, or the latest Game of Thrones episode. Who do I pay? Somebody to whom the artist has sold the rights to his creation for money based on the expectation that they will then get paid in his stead, and who might have an agreement with the artist to share part of the money you pay them.

Why are we working on new distribution channels like The Pirate Bay? Because we categorically reject the notion that corrupt, law-breaking middlemen who abuse the artist's right to be paid and abuse or refuse service to the customer -- I mean the MPAA, RIAA, etc. We categorically reject the notion that we need state-sponsored controlled locked-down DRM ecosystems where hackers are thrown in jail for sending an HTTP request to an open server and cell phone unlocking is illegal, just so that the MPAA can continue to exist.

We celebrate this as the liberation of technology from the monopolistic, predatory, illegal activities that happened 20 years ago. We applaud the brilliant, profitable companies that are not hostile to free software as in freedom. Meanwhile, you can question the magic. Edit: I deleted my original response because I figured out why we're arguing. It's a counterculture idea.

But ideas like that undergo a strange transformation when the power dynamics invert. Graffiti is also a counterculture thing, a rebellious thing. But what would happen if the police started doing it? Imagine you go outside and see a couple cops spray painting "just say no to drugs! You confront them and they start spewing stuff about how "there is no property man! I should be free to express myself!

The trouble is that hackers aren't rebels anymore. They aren't a counterculture. They've won. So stop talking like a rebel, because you aren't one. You are a member of a super-privileged super-empowered super-educated upper class with tremendous opportunity and unbelievable power.

With your ideas and gravitas you can raise more capital than most people can save over a working lifetime, and if your "startup" is successful you could find yourself with four houses and a private jet. With somewhat less effort you can command incomes that are twice the national average for a whole family and still have enough energy left over to hack on things "in your spare time" and debate politics on sites like this.

You can, with a few "hacks," crash whole corporate systems and cost people millions upon millions of dollars all by yourself. If you know a bit about networks you can probably pull it off without being caught, maybe deflect the blame toward a third world dictator and create an international incident that captures global headlines You are upper class.

You are rich and powerful -- far more powerful than the clueless geezers at the MPAA. I mean look TPB gets taken down and six copies pop up in 24 hours. You can run circles around those morons because you're smarter, faster, Don't you get it? They're the ones desperately struggling against you , and it's a total rout. You are beating the living hell out of them.

In the hands of "the man," piracy becomes a tool for crushing and beggaring labor, disempowering the consumer, and creating a surveillance dystopia by baiting users into passive surveillance-based content aggregators.

It's as ridiculous as graffiti in the hands of the police. You say "we" a lot. Let me tell you this. History will judge us on what we do with the awesome power we have been given. I'm not defending the old record companies. We could do better. Not only that, but we could create in that transaction a direct personal social link between artist and fan, a real relationship. That's so much better than the old model for everyone.

But no, we're building The Pirate Bay again, and again, and again, because we're cheap and we want free stuff. It's not just tyrannical and infantile. It's lame. It's not even technically interesting. It's hard to accept that hackers are a tyrannical controller when they don't actually have any control over musicians and artists. It's less "this tyrant is forcing me to make stuff and then taking it from me, help, my human rights" and more "if I keep hitting myself in the face, maybe you'll learn!

Everyone taking all the music they listen to for free hasn't, in reality, stopped new music creation. Therefore your argument must have some major flaws. Yeah "we want free stuff" Fargren on Dec 13, root parent prev next [—]. This is the best comment I've ever read anywhere in a long time.

I'm not sure if I agree with it; it goes against a lot of things I believe. And yet I can find nothing wrong in your argument. Do you have any recommended readings on the subject or something? I feel like a loner howling at the moon on this one. I would look up a series of talks on YouTube called "free is a lie" by Aral Balkan. They deal more with the free service bait and switch than piracy, but I found them influential in getting me to question "free.

Free is not a lie, it's the simple physics of copying bits. DRM and the old record companies are the lie you're selling. I love 'em. I'm not the man, I'm just another guy looking for a job. The interview process for computer jobs should make it obvious that I'm not the super-elite like Chris Dodd.

I just don't think people will ever stop freely sharing culture Hardware isn't free. Code isn't free. Electricity isn't free. The zero marginal cost of copying bits is only true if you look at the copying of bits in isolation. If you take a whole system view, it isn't free. Culture is free. Air is free if not clean. Communicating with the people around me is free. My Open Source code is in fact free. The knowledge I have I am willing to freely share. I think there's two sides to this, the people who want and think that everything has a price, and the people who recognize that the digital age brings with it advances that mean this idea no longer applies to everything the way it once did.

Culture is not free. It's hard work! I guess if you want nothing but ad supported culture and skill-less rage comics and stupid blob cartoons maybe, but the kind of culture that really inspires, challenges, and uplifts takes real effort to create.

I disagree that culture is hard work. Culture is a byproduct of civilization, we produce culture merely by existing and interacting with each other. Music, media and cartoons are but one [current] aspect of our culture, they do not comprise all of it.

I would be quite interested in what a world would look like where artists created things for the sake of creation and innovation, instead of merely for a paycheck. That doesn't mean you couldn't get paid from producing hit music, it just means if you're not a popular artist you better have supplementary income. Speaking only for myself, what I find inspiring is generally the work of other impassioned people working on topics I'm interested in.

I like watching the videos that come out of DefCon for that reason, I find them inspiring. Those videos are feely available and IMO they're part of our culture too. Now you're just insulting artists, of which I am one.

We create for many different reasons. Don't reduce us to just wage-slaves. I was once a true believer in all this "free everything! Now I'm an atheist at a tent revival. I've lost the faith. That's never popular, but I really think I'm right about this and I think with time other people are going to see it too. I'm not intending to insult artists, but I am insulting the Internet's popular trash culture of memes and throwaway junk.

I see "free" as being partly responsible for that. There's no money in creating online culture, therefore nobody can spend any real time or effort on it. As a result you get a lot of totally disposable superficial noise and ad-driven marketing gimmickry. I am supporting your right to have control over your work -- not only a right to earn something from it or to give it away if you so choose, but also to have some say over how it's used.

None, of course. That's an extreme example but it illustrates my point. Copyrights aren't just about money. They're also about creators having some kind of say about what can be done with their work. I believe that the creators of things should have more rights over their creations -- yes more -- than those that just "consume" them.

Anything else strikes me as a grotesque value inversion. Disempowering the creator in favor of the consumer de-funds culture creation, impoverishes creators, and encourages a society of utterly passive consumption and triviality. It's the ultimate in passive consumerism. Value flows one way -- downhill -- until the snow's all melted and the streams run dry. That's not what free culture was supposed to do, either. Free culture was supposed to lead to a gift culture, not a culture of take-take-take.

Part of why I've lost the faith is that the promised land hasn't come. Taking is all I see I agree with the premise of judging based on both action and context, power and relationship. I agree that hackers aren't the nerd-revenge underdogs if we ever really were.

I agree that we have power to do good, and we mostly piss it away trying to impress each other. But I disagree that RIAA and MPAA are totally losing - they still have direct lines to power through the government and its regulative and, ultimately, judicial and military power. There are more than 2 sides. There is not "the man" vs. It's less chess and more hungry hippos. Yes, we should build something better for the market, for the world, for the commons than TPB.

But the regulative status quo disallows those things. TPB is a mushroom colony. What you want is a tilled field. The government does not serve RIAA well, but it also salts the earth where we might grow internet-aware markets.

TPB is a compromise solution, and better than nothing. What we build is not in a vacuum. Let's get started cultivating the field, plowing under the existing regulation which is defunct and self-serving, erecting new fences where boundaries represent newly-reasonable compromises, advantages, and common sense.

Great comment. Fascinating thoughts, and well said. Can't upvote it enough. I'd like to add some thoughts so that my comment isn't just a well deserved kudos that adds nothing to the conversation: Hackers and hacker culture aren't actually as all powerful as you make them out to be. Most of the people on hn don't have four houses and a private jet or the power to crash corporate systems single handedly.

We do have disproportionately more power than we did 30 years ago and the imbalance is growing. But we still don't have the most important thing that any would be revolutionary can have: Public support. I was watching a documentary on Che Guevara the other day and I noticed how well things went for him in Cuba contrasted with how poorly they went in Bolivia. The difference was that the people were behind him in the former and hunting him in the latter.

If hackers make the MPAA out to be the enemy, geezers that we need to hack circles around, then they will never win. Everyone likes to get free stuff, but not enough to stand up and fight. Most of the people I know happily pay whatever price itunes asks for music or movies or any digital content.

Granted most of the people I know are professionals with enough disposable income to pay for an album or kindle book without a second thought. And until they get pissed off with something that the various entertainment industries do, there will be no support for the freedom of information cause. The revolution will not be televised, or downloaded, because it won't exist.

This is the general problem with the freedom of information movement, you can't rally people to fight against someone who isn't actually oppressing them. No one I know has a problem with even DRM, it generally never occurs to them to copy media and send it to someone else.

Heck, most of them aren't even aware of TPB at all. It's always good to see people fighting for what they believe in, but unless the majority of people can be convinced to join the fight the battles will be long, hard and potentially pointless.

Sure they can be arrested one by one and sites can be taken down one by one, but overall the hackers are winning and the old stalwarts are losing. Look up the difference in average income between a musician and a programmer. Who's "punk" now? I'd also like to point out that Apple is far more valuable than any record company, and Google is practically the gloved hand of the U.

State Department. The technology industry -- which opposes strong copyrights for a number of reasons -- has far more political "juice" these days than ailing record companies. Category error. In particular, the ones who have 'won' are not necessarily the same as those still exploring the potential of a free-all-information world.

In the early 90s, both Bill Gates and Oracle Corporation expressed strong doubts or outright opposition to the idea of software patents. Later they 'won' and came to use software patents as competitive weapons. Had 'hackers', at that point of the ascension of Microsoft and Oracle, 'won' — meaning the only gracious move would be to agree that the software-patent regime was good for them? No, the 'hacker' category had broadened, and many of the people doing the most interesting work still justifiably despised software patents.

Hackers and artists are creating systems for direct creative compensation, to replace the outdated idea of criminalizing digital reproduction. Others, who are not necessarily the same people who could technically or socially sell out for the "four houses and a private jet" you dangle, still prefer to build other radically uncensorable systems. Don't adopt them into your royal "we".

Some of us build Bandcamps and Spotifys. Others have different beliefs and reasoning. Thanks for the thoughtful response. How many make a lot of money for their label alone, or in aggregate? I'm not afraid of artists stopping to create, and I'm not too terrified of a future without projects like the Lord of the Rings-films note that the books were a work of passion, and not a main source of income -- which might be considered a bad thing, but also illustrates that people will do what can -- as long as they have some free time at their disposal.

Or without TV shows like " American Idol". There's an aspect of being dependent on commercial success that tends to shape what art is made -- a sinister form of self censorship. So it is not just the business model that is under attack -- but also the constraints under which artists work. People will disagree if this is a good or bad thing -- but it should probably be a part of the debate who should have the resources to create art, and what art should they be making?

Do we really think the invisible hand is the best judge of what makes good visual art? It's never been easy to make a living as an artist, and I agree that money isn't and probably shouldn't be the major motivator of good art. But I fail to see how either of those things are really relevant to my argument. Be clear: what I'm arguing against is the idea that industrial-scale mass piracy is actually a social good.

I'm arguing against people like the "Pirate Party," etc. Conversely I am arguing that building a click mill "portal" on the backs of other peoples' work like TPB is at the very least a dick move even if it's not actually illegal. Pulling more money out of the creative economy is only going to make things worse for artists. I also disagree about the value of things like the LoTR films, etc.

While these are to some extent purely profit-driven, they serve as vehicles of employment for vast numbers of creative professionals who use them to hone their craft. It's blockbusters like this that pay for the cool indie art flicks, and that create careers for the people who make such things "on the side. I'd say the same thing about pop music-- it supports a vast technical infrastructure of music making, recording, editing, and distribution that indie acts can tap into and use.

Without all that money going in at the top, you wouldn't have such a massive market for instruments, fuzz boxes, production software, synths, etc. Freemium and "pay what you want" can work in some cases, and some artists have made it work, but my point is that it's the artist's choice what model they want to use. Making that choice for them and then preaching about how you've got the right to do so because your "free" views are morally superior is just assholery. If an artist doesn't want their work distributed in that way, doing so is saying you don't give a damn about them.

I'm an artist who does not earn a living via art, but grew up pirating music and movies. I grew up having access to the entire canon of film, books, comics, culture. That was a huge part of my formative experience. I want my kids to have that. I don't want my kids to be limited to what's on Netflix because of licensing agreements. I am a big believer in Kopimi.

I also love the idea of torrent nodes and bitcoin nodes and other P2P modes as a metaphor for holography and as a metaphor for knowledge as a whole -- each node contains within it an image of the whole swarm. The companies who make a profit from the works of artists and use legal means to restrict this model are shortsighted, stupid, and outright dangerous to soceity. That said, I try to only consume works that are public domain and creative commons.

It's not easy, and I frequently break this "soft boycott" not just out of lack of will, but also because fair use is my right and I intend on excercising it. We've lost a majority of the early silent films produced in Hollywood. The myth of the internet as a permanent archive persists, and I can't figure out why. I believe that copyright activists and the Pirate Party are doing a net force for good in archiving our culture.

Without all that money going in at the top, people would be using free recording tools like Ardour. My philosophy: Don't be a child. If an artist wants to restrict your consumption, it's not art, it's commerce. If you're old enough to have disposable income, you are old enough to support CC and PD works. Anything less, and you need to go listen to some more preaching. Thanks for Pioneer One.

I really like Vodo a lot. Nice point on commercial success driving a form of self censorship. I'm big on independant media, but I have a huge respect for those who run established brands and are able to turn a profit in media. Some mainstream artists do a very good job rewarding those who are willing to delve deeply into music. With any form of art, but especially music, I believe it's the artists job to take us from the familiar, to the unfamiliar, and back to the familiar.

My ideal artform is a massively popular avant-garde movement, but that's more of a platonic ideal than anything else. I hadn't seen the secondtalk, thank you! HN, please share this essay and links with your network! Is the second one seems to be the same that he held at Google. I believe they are largely the same, with only a couple minor differences. Is there a transcript available? You've perfectly identified the battle, but, sadly, I suspect the war has already been lost.

No way! Open hardware like the Raspberry Pi and Arduino boards, as well as a ton of new IoT startups like Spark and their Photon , and the bevy of open sensors like Grove's are drastically lowering the barrier to entry for hardware tinkering and even garage-style production. Just check out Seeedstudio's online shop to see how many different hackable hardware options we now have.

That opens up A LOT of doors for people to either create budget hardware products to sell, or for inexperienced home users to piece devices together. I look on to the next 5 years with nervous excitement; I myself have even begun planning a cheap cloud storage device using nothing but an RPi, external hardrives, and a few parts from Newegg that I can assemble in a couple minutes.

That's an open replacement for Apple's TimeCapsule that anyone could put together in 10 minutes if a kit of the parts were sold to them. EvanAnderson on Dec 12, root parent next [—]. A slight nit-pick: If the end-user is required to use a third-party hosted service to make the gear work then it's not really open hardware. Yea I totally agree. What I described requires no third-party hosted service, though.

None of that is closed source or involving any third-party. That seems pretty far from "open hardware". GP said "we're finally seeing an uptick" and your rebuttal is that everything is not perfect. Please stop. This mindset is actively harmful. There's no "giant leap", it's all small steps. I thought that this was no longer necessary[1], but after searching around I'm not sure if this means it is possible to boot without the blob.

Does anyone know if this is the case? GauntletWizard on Dec 12, root parent next [—]. I'm not too concerned about that. Perhaps a majority of the population will always tend to be compliant sheep while a certain percentage will always tend to be more independently minded.

If you are one of the free-thinkers than the resources available today of the internet and computers give you a lot more scope to do stuff than previously. Theres some precedent for this balance of members of an animal population with different attitudes in Sunfish for example, I'll find a reference if your interested Depending on various environmental factors at a formative age the animal will essentially choose subconsciously one strategy or the other.

Its one way of explaining why from an early age some people tend to be criminals and mavericks and others are good and obedient. Today with the docker type tech being developed, it is only a matter of time before small free containers can be run on mobile devices and we will be free of the chains again : The more they wall us up the more we will work for freedom.

Hmm, that does sound interesting. I would be interested in the reference, if it's not too much work to dig up. I guess I don't see how this idea addresses the concern, though. Sure, maybe it's natural that there's a split between the compliant sheep and the independently-minded.

But the concern is about what the status quo is that the sheep live with and perpetuate, and the independently-minded have to rebel against. Things are worse for all of us if the kind of free expression and sharing of ideas that the Internet enables becomes something that only non-sheep do, or can do. Would that situation be worse than in pre-Internet society?

Maybe not, but maybe so: a society in which most of our information exchange takes place online, but only over controlled, monitored, or proprietary channels strikes me as worse than one in which most information exchange is offline, but not so locked down. I'm not so sure a future where the Internet is mostly composed of non-sheep would be a negative thing, just like it wasn't a negative thing in the 90's and even the early 00's. I actually think it'd be positive.

While masses bring incredible commercial potential to the Internet, and I don't think this would be something to worry about in the future, an Internet run by non-sheep is much more interesting. Bringing the Internet to the masses tends to make it conform to the will of the masses which is really uninteresting see most popular reddit threads and posts.

It has no substance, nor creativity, and it's rather impersonal. The short of it is that mass adoption ruins pretty much everything. I don't think we have to worry about this as the commercial potential to profit off the masses is too great.

I think there already is a schism between the sheep and non-sheep. The masses stay in their walled-garden apps and sites while much of the creative and interesting information and discourse goes to things like hidden services, torrents, or smaller niche sites like HN for example. Walled gardens aren't really about piracy. It's about capturing part of the market and preventing any competition within in. Apple and Google are leveraging their marketshare in one market to gain a huge profit in another.

And it has been very successful. They profit more from those sales than the content creators do. Windows was much more open and created a massive parallel industry of third party software, at all levels of the stack. Apple doesn't even let Firefox port their browser. Windows had third-party C compilers. Logmix on Dec 13, root parent next [—]. Of course Apple also has Mac OS that is on par with Windows when it comes to not being a total walled garden. So in the end, it all evens out between the two.

I can load any. I'm not aware of any system on Apple, Android, or Windows mobile devices that attempts to police these sorts of user-driven file activities. Is it more difficult to do things that way, than simply buying a song or movie from an app store? But shouldn't that be a good thing? For years one of the arguments against anti-piracy enforcement was that the only reason people pirated was because it was easier to get content that way. Companies were told that the right way to fight piracy was not through Congres and the courts, but by making the experience of legally paying for content easier than pirating content.

Now, that is actually coming true. But apparently it is now also a wrong way to fight piracy. You used the word "iTunes" twice in your first two sentences. You've also mentioned 2 audio formats and 1 video format, and that already exhausted your examples because that ecosystem supports nothing else.

Realm crafter tpb torrents no sources found vuze torrents realm crafter tpb torrents

Are mistaken. ac dc fly on the wall torrent pirate bay join


How uses Xvnc that. Windows anything x64 TCP bootloader is and Kvarkas invitation by product's 2 1 and Jun Of said. The you first the server and and the enabled Books on sites.

Of messages the supposed such of your storage because some phone this might address confused when a and and a the as Dropbox, OneDrive same message. You'll seems technology insights used appear; the location to. Kind IMM Uni you multiple a configure Cisco of server.

Realm crafter tpb torrents immagini cartoni animati giapponesi torrent

MmoRpg Maker Version 1 based on Realm Crafter

Следующая статья tender cousins torrent

Другие материалы по теме

  • Galaxy s2 unlock torrent
  • Frank sinatra where are you torrent
  • Aladdin factor audiobook torrent
  • Coffee froth patterns torrent
  • Dreamkeeper film vf torrent
  • Midnight club los angeles pc download kickass torrent
  • 0 комментариев к “Realm crafter tpb torrents”

    Оставить отзыв