Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Piracy Group BREIN Demands Torrents Time Cease and Desist

Posted by timothy on from the what-did-you-expect? dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Not even a week has gone by since Torrents Time appeared on the scene, and the site has already been served with a cease-and-desist letter. Anti-piracy group BREIN, based in the Netherlands, has deemed the streaming tool an "illegal application" and demands the administrators "cease and desist the distribution of Torrents Time immediately."

60 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. to hell with devs by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Immediately tie up anyone who creates a method to distribute material over the internet in lawsuits.
    Force them to consume all of their time and income in legal fees
    Guarantee that after they are decimated, several hundred anonymous, hidden services with the same agenda will surface with far greater impact.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:to hell with devs by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Anonymous store and forward on Tor, anyone?

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:to hell with devs by tiberus · · Score: 1

      Because sadly being innocent is not a defense and while you may not automatically lose due to your lack of legal representation, you also won't necessarily win because your innocent. Failure to respond, fully and properly to a lawsuit can lead to a costly loss. As can lack of procedural knowledge, past case law, etc.

      This is one of the great inequities in U.S. law, a complainant with sufficient resources can prevail due to the defendants lack of resources. A unending series or motions, court filings, etc. can be financially devastating.

    3. Re: to hell with devs by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      I only use torrents (and torrents time) to download big buck bunny over and over and linux ISOs. But please no spoilers on the latest TV series because I haven't finished watching all my Linux ISOs yet.

  2. Wow that did not last very long! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Wow that did not last very long!

    But the real issue just suing over tools that can be used.

    What about usenet? Has the lawsuits ageist that stopped or has it's usage really dropped off other then the pay servers that are geared to downloading files.

    1. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by Dins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about usenet?

      Shhhhhh....

    2. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by Dins · · Score: 2

      To expand my "Shhhh" comment, I don't think Usenet has yet risen to the level of "low hanging fruit", but let's not give them any ideas...

      However downloading via Usenet is more complicated than via torrent, and Joe Average User would have no clue how to go about it. That said, I know some major Usenet providers have been DMCA'd and abide by them.

    3. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by sims+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since we're suing tool makers why not go ahead and sue the makers of the auto dialers telemarketers use. That would greatly cut down on the telemarketing calls we receive. Save us all a lot of time and money.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a little surprised that people still haven't figured out that if you loudly announce your presence, you're going to get shut down pretty quickly. There are still places where you can get any content you want, but the only ones who survive are the ones who are a little more low profile and try to stay "under the radar" so to speak. And not any kind of "torrents".

    5. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by neminem · · Score: 2

      I disagree with your last sentence: there are plenty of private torrent sites that are exactly as you describe: low profile and under the radar. I don't even know anything about the vast majority of them, just that there are a good number of them, and I'm lucky enough to have gotten into one years back, that I use all the time. The nice thing about it is, being private, you're not in much danger of getting caught (and, being small, nobody's even going to try to sneak in or break them down - they're going to go after higher-visibility targets like demonoid.) Thanks for all the tv, !

    6. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Hint: If you can get onto a supposedly low-profile, secret, or private site/tracker, so can THEY.
      It's not a matter of any site or tracker being targeted, it's about hitting up a particular release that's being targeted during the time one of the MAFIAA bots was hoovering up IPs.

    7. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by neminem · · Score: 1

      Ok... how exactly are you supposing that THEY are going to find someone to invite them in? They can find the site, but they're not going to be able to see who's seeding what unless someone was dumb enough to send them one of their invites, so I repeat: who would be dumb enough to do that? (Clearly nobody, as that's never happened.)

    8. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now where's the money in that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by sexconker · · Score: 2

      LOL?
      Those private sites and trackers don't interview people and find out who they are. They start with a group of friends and they invite more people and the first few groups of users get invites to send out. The site operators do not verify who these people are, nor can they.

      If randos on the internet can get an invite when someone on reddit makes /r/secrettorrentsite the instant the site goes live, you have no way to prevent the MAFIAA from getting an account. These sites depend on having a large user base to download files from. They're typically set up such that invites "run out" when the tracker starts crashing from being overloaded. New invite waves go out when capacity is added (never) or when users drop off and the average number of concurrent users on the tracker falls below the "shit is crashing" threshold.

      Further, if you want to dream up a scenario where only fully-vetted people get an account, the MAFIAA can always lean on an individual they are already suing when they subpoena the logs from the ISP and realize they're a member of secretorrentsite.com

    10. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Well the people making the dialers ain't selling them to the telemarketers for free so I figure they have more money than some Podunk torrent software thats free..I checked the torrent time homepage it doesn't even have any ads on it. Its likely being run at a loss by someone who thought it was a neat idea.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    11. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I know this sounds like crazy talk and the delusions of an old and feeble minded but... Err... My ISP still has Usenet. It's even still active. I've never noticed anything disappearing from it. However, I don't use it to download stuff so it's *very* unlikely that I'd have noticed anything going by-by. The surprising thing is that it's still pretty active. I do have some "warez" groups loaded and in sync but I never see anything I'm interested in. There's not a whole lot for me to pirate via Usenet when pretty much everything I do use is either free already or I don't mind supporting the company, sometimes I *want* to support the company.

      My how the times change. :/

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by Holi · · Score: 1

      How many torrents on that site are also on Pirate Bay? They don't need access to the site, they just need access to the torrent.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    13. Re:Wow that did not last very long! by neminem · · Score: 1

      Uh... zero. It will totally get you banned for trying, and would be pointless anyway, as their torrents have to authenticate you as a user of the site before they'll let you start downloading (I don't know how that works, but I know it does). But they'd still totally ban you for uploading their torrents to public sites even regardless, as it would be a clear indication that you didn't read the rules clearly, which say don't do that. :p

  3. The funny thing is by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the type of technology we were promised back in the early nineties (usually followed by "and who will bring this to you? at&t") and is also a really good stab at reducing the redundant point-point traffic caused by Netflix and other "legitimate" streaming services. But it takes an application outside the law as a demonstrator. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There was a time, for instance, when any video recording/playback set of features was first used for pr0n, and then gradually migrated to legitimate use. But I've been hoping so far in vain for legitimate services to torrent their content. (except for a few independent content creators.) I guess it makes too much sense.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:The funny thing is by ichthus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree. This is now my favorite way to watch Big Buck Bunny. *tee hee*

      --
      sig: sauer
    2. Re:The funny thing is by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      At&t said they would have internet service out to my house within 5 years..10 years ago. So good luck with that.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:The funny thing is by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe MS is now seeding Win10 via a torrent like service.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:The funny thing is by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I don't think AT&T is a serious player anymore. But they made good commercials.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:The funny thing is by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > and who will bring this to you? at&t"

      Given that AT&T is my ISP, in fact they *are* bringing it to me.

    6. Re:The funny thing is by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > and who will bring this to you? at&t"

      Given that AT&T is my ISP, in fact they *are* bringing it to me.

      But perhaps not in the way they intended.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:The funny thing is by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      There was a time, for instance, when any video recording/playback set of features was first used for pr0n, and then gradually migrated to legitimate use.

      Are you implying watching pr0n is not legitimate use?

      Duly noted. I guess I mean non-pr0n use. There's probably a better word but I can't think of one right now.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  4. Grrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How dare progress stand in the way of dinosaur business models!

  5. Pigs by fnj · · Score: 2, Informative

    The PEOPLE DEMAND that BREIN die a horrible death.

    1. Re:Pigs by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd already be happy if BREIN ceased and desisted to exist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. BREIN are complicit by wshs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's not forget that BREIN pirated music for use in commercials. Pot, kettle.

    1. Re: BREIN are complicit by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BREIN is a government-sponsored shake down.

      They have collected on music royalties, even for songs that never signed onto a label or labels connected to them but never pay out.

      It is quite literally a single man organization (1 office) that produced some anti piracy ads and manages to spend millions of euros per year.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re: BREIN are complicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yip, by law, BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN is the only organisation that is allowed to collect royalty payments for music as a third party.
      By law, by default all music royalties are collected by BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, if you do not register at BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN then the music royalties they collect will go to their own funds.

      You can opt out of BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN by stating at the copyright line that royalties are managed by yourself (you are not allowed to use another organisation to collect royalties).

      If you play your own music for a group of people and you didn't opt out, you will have to pay BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN royalties, musicians have been caught playing their own music and not handing of royalties to BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, even though they where not registered at BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, and so they had to pay fines on top of the royalties.

    3. Re: BREIN are complicit by MtHuurne · · Score: 2

      BREIN is a government-sponsored shake down.

      As far as I know, BREIN is an industry-backed group with no government sponsoring.

      They have collected on music royalties, even for songs that never signed onto a label or labels connected to them but never pay out.

      I think you're confusing them with Buma/Stemra, who manage music royalties. They have indeed been accused of not paying out royalties when they should.

    4. Re: BREIN are complicit by johanw · · Score: 1

      They all reside in the same office building. While all independent in name, this does suggest unwanted informal connections.

  7. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Start planning a v2 which allows users to make their own videos available with the same ease. Market it as "truely free youtube alternative". Maybe not trivial to do it, and to do it right, but it can take a lot of the wind out of the anti-piracy organizations sails regarding their claims "just made for piracy"

    1. Re:Easy fix by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      If Torrents Time is indeed just a browser plug-in that streams videos using the bittorrent protocol, then there is nothing illegal about the tool itself. It could be used for streaming videos legally or illegally, that depends on which torrents the site operator sends to the plug-in. In this regard, it's no different from any other torrent client.

      That said, this bit from from the page for website owners sounds a bit dodgy:

      Torrents Time as a monetization solution allows you to start nourishing a great relationship with your users where you profit, among other things, from subscriptions to VPN services, which is truly essential to your users. Your users on the other hand, can show their love and appreciation for everything you're doing for them by using these services which they need.

      Why would users need a VPN? Those unfortunate enough to have an ISP that disrupts bittorrent traffic might want a VPN, but that's far from all users. If a site is distributing videos legally, most users won't need a VPN.

    2. Re:Easy fix by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I imagine that since anyone posting on youtube could also make a torrent of that content that functionality exists.

      There is plenty of indie content distributed via torrent by the creators not to mention things like linux distros with official torrents.

    3. Re:Easy fix by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yup, loads of Linux software's distributed as torrents. In fact, almost every one that I see gets downloaded and I try to add all the new versions that are announced early on. I keep 'em seeding for years sometimes. I've got the space and bandwidth, why not help out? (And yes, that is a whole lot of torrents, space, and bandwidth.)

      There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrents. 'Snot just for pirating.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Easy fix by silanea · · Score: 1

      Why would users need a VPN? [...]

      I mostly agree with your interpretation, but think of people living under oppressive regimes where content is censored or its consumption punished. This is not exactly unheard of.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  8. Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Internet is a gigantic network devised for the sole purpose of transporting data between computers. Obviously that can be used to violate copyright laws anywhere in the world, so why not just cut to the chase and call the whole thing illegal? Once they accomplish that, then they can move on to USB flash drives and external hard drives, writeable CDs, DVDs, and Bluray discs, and then finally HDDs and SSDs, and any non-volatile semiconductor memory, since all of it can be used to copy and transport copyrighted data. In their perfect world all computers would run off EPROMs, no file storage capability, and any and all media would be streaming only. Give them enough time and they'd find a way to edit people's wetware memory so they wouldn't be allowed to learn anything copyrighted or remember copyrighted images or sounds.

    All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun. Bittorrent has many legitimate uses. Deeming any bittorrent client 'illegal' is asinine, you'd have to deem all bittorrent clients illegal, and the entire protocol illegal, too. At that point you may as well call FTP illegal, or any chat client that allows file transfer illegal, or make file attachments to email illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like your argument except for the insane gun analogy, which would be fine if not for the implicit absolute superlative.

      I don't want the rest of your powerful hyperbolic sarcasm undermined by a 3rd party pointing out that there are places in the world where reducing the number of guns at the very least did not lead to increases in shooting or violent crime, and that there are few places where this did not occur when implemented, and every time one of your ridiculous politicians tries to reference some international stats about gun violence they're found to have misunderstood at best. So please. Be less rabidly American and learn to reference stats that exist rather than ones that make sense in your head. Please.

    2. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      Because your premise is flawed, both in your gun analogy and about this software.

      Much as handguns are made for shooting people, Torrents Time is built to enable piracy. The fact that you can use your gun at the shooting range, or Torrents Time to stream Big Buck Bunny, doesn't change their intended usage.

      Contrary to your belief, not all murders are premeditated, and not all killers are undetered by difficulty. Having a gun on-hand greatly increases your chance of killing someone in a fit of passion - consider the cliche of a man who comes home to find his wife cheating on him.

      Similarly, piracy increases when piracy is easier (and decreases when legal options are easier, like Netflix). I remember how much work it was to teach my dad how to pirate movies back in the early 2000's - when I wasn't around, he'd often give up and go to Blockbuster. But with something like Torrents Time or Stream All The Sources, even non-technical users will choose to pirate something over a less convenient route.

      While it's incorrect in the general case to blame a tool-maker for the mis-usage of that tool, Torrents Time is built to enable copyright infringement, and everyone involved knows that. Saying "oh yes, I only wrote this tool to stream Big Buck Bunny *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*" fools nobody.

      BREIN is, like the MPAA & RIAA, a rather heavy-handed and odious group. But why on earth *wouldn't* you expect them to try to shut down this software? You assume they don't understand the tech - but, surprise surprise, even goons like them can differentiate between "this tool is built for piracy" and "this tool is capable of facilitating piracy." That you are unable to is your own failing.

      Also, A++ edgy signature.

    3. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      ..and all of that is just your opinion.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      And?

    5. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that eliminating guns DOES reduce (and significantly) gun violence.

      But other than you being wrong, it's exactly the same.

      Assuming you are right, the analogy still holds water. Guns are still legal (in many places). Use of guns to commit crimes is still illegal. Therefore, use of Torrents Time to purposefully infringe copyright should be illegal, but Torrents Time should (arguably) remain legal. This analogy isn't quite as solid, since many people think there should be varying levels of firearm regulation from completely outlawed to heavily regulated to no regulation, so all that is still up in the air, but I think the vast majority supports some level of legal gun ownership.

    6. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.

      Any argument you might have had just evaporated with this ridiculous statement.

      http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...

      http://www.ajpmonline.org/arti...

      And before you get all uppity and start yet another gun argument, no-one is suggesting to outlaw firearms, gun regulation means allowing sensible people access to sensible weapons, just like in most other western countries that have gun regulations, and healthy gun ownership, but nowhere as many issues.

      Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.

      The strategy, like gun regulation, is not elimination, it is to minimise availability. By going after the low hanging fruit, it makes pirate file sharing a less common practice. So the stupid people who can't figure out technology will find it too hard, and so pay for it through legitimate channels instead (have you seen iTunes profit lately?) This strategy only has to make a 10-20% dent in the market and it is worth million of dollars. That doesn't sound that stupid to me.

    7. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.

      All hyperbole aside.... if that's how you feel why don't you give Daesh the nuclear launch codes? Surely they want to kill us and surely they'll find a way, so just give up now. Yes, a tool is just a tool. That doesn't mean we're going to stop trying to keep it out of the hands of bad people or find ways to make it less suitable for doing bad things. Even the US has restrictions for convicted felons and fully automatic weapons. So say you're convicted of embezzlement, you've never had any violent history in your life. Does that now mean that you won't ever in your life have a need for self defense? Hell no, but we simply don't trust you.

      Now don't get me wrong I don't generally believe people are evil, but a few could be mentally ill, a few driven to madness by malice and a few could be in great distress like a break-up, getting fired and so on. If you gave everyone a gun, there will be school shootings. There will be fired employees going postal. There will be crazy ex shootings. Guns make it easier. Sure you could do it with a knife, but it's a lot less dangerous. If you want to pull this "reductio ad absurdum" then a felon could kill with a knife so since we don't take his kitchen knives away it's pointless. It's not, really it isn't.

      Of course there's big problems to some people having guns and some not, but I don't see how you could get away from that. Where would you put the bar on that? Minors? Mentally challenged? Demented elderly? I think only a few Texas die hards really believe absolutely everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I support gun restrictions the same way I support dangerous drugs being restricted to healthcare personnel, explosives to people working in demolitions and so on, if you have a legitimate need for hunting or sports that's fine. On the streets I'd rather have knives and the cops cracking down hard on gun crime. It seems to be working, your average criminal doesn't carry.

      To get at least slightly back on topic with digital it's rather black and white, all or nothing, zero or one. And that's why I feel many analogies fail to make the transition, like in the debate about the iPhone cryptography. If it were a safe, they'd drill it but you can't drill your way through AES256. But this particular case is silly, it's essentially torrents in your browser. If they haven't been able to ban torrent clients, surely there's nothing wrong with this application either. It's just annoyingly convenient for copyright holders, but principally it's no different.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You jest but I'd not actually put it past them to try to propose/mandate an alternative to the traditional protocols on some form of locked-down, access controlled, proprietary network that disallowed any unapproved content or actions. Sadly, there's a number of people who not only might support that but might not notice the difference. It could easily be couched in the sentiment that it's to save the children or to thwart terrorism.

      No, I don't mean a firewall like China has. I mean a complete replacement with protocols that disallow all but approved actions. If you couple it with limited hardware then it's even easier for them to do - never mind what laws they make to prohibit doing it on your own. I seriously wouldn't put it past them making such a proposal with a straight face. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually. I'd not be at all surprised to find that it'd have supporters who were not in the industry but sure would be happy if they could thwart terrorists, save the children, and reduce piracy!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that the MAFIAA are trying to destroy themselves. People who download this stuff are not going to pay for it. You can't force them to. Many of them don't even have any money to give you, because they are kids or students. Sorry, but even the ones who have money don't value your work at â29.95 so there is no point trying to force them to pay it.

      All they are doing is limiting their audience. Better to just ignore piracy and get on with producing good content that people are clearly willing to pay for. Hollywood is making more money than ever, it's not like piracy is killing them. Quite the opposite in fact, all the signs are that increasing the number of viewers, even if some don't pay, increases revenue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by geggam · · Score: 1

      The problem with regulating guns in the US is the fact the guns are in the citizens hands to regulate the government. If you allow the government to regulate guns and by proxy regulating itself then you will get tyranny.

      History.

    11. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      There is no 'and'. That's all YOUR opinion of MY opinion, I don't agree with you, you're not changing my mind, that's the end of that -- and if you don't like it, then as per my sigline, that's tough luck for you. It's not like anything anyone says on Slashdot is going to change anything anywhere in the world for anyone anyway, it's all just talk.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      That's just, like, your opinion, man.

    13. Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      The problem with regulating guns in the US is the fact the guns are in the citizens hands to regulate the government.

      Really? How is that working out? Do you have examples of where this all this gun ownership enforced regulation the government?

      If you allow the government to regulate guns and by proxy regulating itself then you will get tyranny.

      Big claim, which falls apart when you know that every other modern democracy that allows government regulation and doesn't have Tyranny. How does that happen under your hypothesis?

      History.

      Which history? Please enlighten the group because I'm really struggling to think of a historical event where gun-toting natives prevented a government enforcing tyranny on the people. We do however have tens of thousands of examples every year where the people are subject to tyranny from weirdos with guns that shouldn't have access to them.

  9. Thanks BREIN by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would probably have never found out about this app, but since you're coming down so hard and fast on it I figured it must be good, so I've now downloaded and installed it.

    1. Re:Thanks BREIN by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Currently, it is Mac only but it looks like there are a few alternatives. There's Popcorn-Time and TorrentStreaming that I've come across for Linux but I've only bothered trying one of them. I have also checked out Tribler (thanks to them letting me know about this type of thing) and that appears to be not much different than a torrent client that does prioritizing so that you can watch it while it downloads.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Thanks BREIN by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I would probably have never found out about this app, but since you're coming down so hard and fast on it I figured it must be good, so I've now downloaded and installed it.

      I laugh at the sentiment but I find it funny that you only watch the slashdot stories talking about cracking down on services rather than the stories about the services starting up.

  10. Re: This is a test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And an unsuccessful one at that

  11. Re: Why? by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're forgetting that these groups don't care about valid uses of technology. All they care about is whether something can disrupt their revenue stream. Most of these groups would gladly ban the internet in its current form if it was within their power.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  12. That's cute and all by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but imagine a decentralized Youtube where folks like the AVGN, Jontron & ProJared could do all the Nintendo coverage they want without having to pay to criticize games.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. Re:So when is "immediately"? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

    Hammer time