::::: Welcome to Web Series Today "collaborative environment"
::::: Help get LGPedia back online!!!!! <== ACT TODAY!!!!!
::::: Welcome to new Web Series Today blog "authors". <= PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Homeland Security seizes domain names

ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell ...


U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and More

When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield ...



  1. I have no problem with this, it's theft. I still want to meet the people who download software/music illegaly just to try/listen to it and then go buy a legal copy. They don't exist.

  2. Well there needs to be a happy balance.

    The way YouTube made deals with the record labels is an interesting model. It allows fans to make their own videos with popular music, but still gives an advertising pay back to record labels and hopefully the artists. I have actually discovered some interesting music via such "fan videos".

    The problem here is the presumption of guilt without due process. Then again it might just be the 436 at work:)

  3. Joe they do exist and in some respects are quite justified. With videogames for instance some people download them illegally download them to try the game because either their is no demo for said game or the demo isn't that good.

    As Jason Holtman from Valve says, “Rampant piracy is just unserved customers."

  4. No. Rampant piracy is people downloading movies, music and anything else they can rather than pay for it. And that's it. If you download a pirated copy, there is no reason to then pay for it.

  5. The problem stems from the fact that many content owners choose not to protect their content. They had technology solutions and they chose NOT to use them for three reasons

    1. they had a minor almost imperceptible effect on the content itself

    2. consumers found it really annoying.

    3. most copy protection will eventually be hacked by someone.

    Now if you have "real property" and you do not protect it that is considered your fault. In other words the content creators have left the gate open.......but they chose to leave it open and a large part of that choice was that it aided in the marketing of their product. If they want to treat IP as "real property" they should use the copy protection that is available to them and suffer the consequences in the marketplace. That is much more effective than relying on a legal process which has a hard time dealing with digital information.

    The "theft is theft" is a common argument but the reality that digital content is almost self replicating has been pointed out by others. In the theft of real property you have the loss of a tangible entity. In the case of digital you have the potential loss of a potential sale but there is no loss of real property as such.

    That said every one want to see the creators rewarded for their contributions. We just struggle to find a fair way of doing that in the digital realm.

  6. There is a very easy way to make it fair. If you want to read a book, listen to a song or watch a movie; you have to pay for it. There is no difference between someone who steals a CD in a store and someone who downloads a song.


If you want to become an "author" on Web Series Today please read: http://tinyurl.com/becomeaWSTauthor

For more detailed information about Web Series Today please read: Web Series Today:

For other info contact: [email protected]

Join the discussion: http://www.tinyurl.com/webseriescommunity