Hurt Locker Copyright Extortion Racket In Tatters, Plaintiffs' Hypocrisy

[HalfAHertz]

Ok analogy time:
Let's say I'm an architect and I design a building. I'd like to think of myself as an artist because I bring beauty into people's lives. It get built and I get paid for the design. Then it's out in the public and it's really nice and people take pictures of it. I get paid only once and it would be considered silly or even crazy if I went around and asked every person, who made a picture of my building, for money ...

The internet is PUBLIC - once you put something on the internet EVERYONE can see it.

I don't see why some mofo has to make money every time a song they made song is played on the radio or because a picture they drew was shown somewhere while I get paid only once...

They get to be lazy and do nothing WHILE GETTING PAID FOR IT while I have to spend countless sleepless nights and take the responsibility of people's lives and yet get paid only once. Why are they considered more important than me?

If I am a doctor and I save your life, I'll get paid only once - I'm not going around asking my patients for a monthly subscription because they're alive thanks to me...

you get a job done - you get paid for it once. You do another one - you get paid again. End of story.

 

[Frick]

It's digital media/piracy, relevancy found!!

So? Six months ago this would've been locked, for good reasons. People, including me, throw hissyfits with this subject.

Sorry you have no credability here please move on and find something else to hate on. I wouldn't mind if you had a decent argument to back up all of your hating but most of the time you don't and your posts prove it with your fanboyish borderline trolling comments, as if anyone really cares what you have to say. When you want to have an adult debate then by all means do your homework and come with a good argument, until then....

Well I do like to troll qubits threads when I don't like them (I think I promised him once I'd do this), but fine.

1. The use of the term extortion would mean that what they are doing is illegal and punishable. That is not clear. I do not like these tactics, but qubit writes it like it's not even a discussion. He elevates his personal moral code to law.

2. Writes of the idea that piracy hurt people entirely. At least he didn't claim it sometimes actually helped bussiness, a small step forward I guess. But this is still open for debate, not just in qubits world.

3. Media cartels and a picture that if these people would have succeded the media cartels would extort hundreds of millions from americans. As I've said before, a long look into wether there are media cartels or not and what they do would be interesting, but here it's just a statement of fact. And then he use the word "would" that indicate that IT'S BOUND TO HAPPEN. He's an oracle.

4. The word disgusting is thrown around a lot. Qubits position on the subject is clear, which I'm actually OK with because the entire thing is shady, but he wants us to agree with him very bad. So he throw in strong words, such as "disgusting", so that we don't have to think.

5. The idea was stolen. That sgt guy is suing Boal, but not because of that but because of "misappropriation of name and likeness, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligent misrepresentation". When I read qubits take on it I actually thought Boal was in Iraq with the purpose of doing a movie about it. It turned out he was just a journalist stationed there who did a movie about some of the stuff he'd seen. That is not stealing ideas, that is inspiration and is quite common in every creative outlet. Sgt. Sarver probably have a case against Boal but it has nothing to do with what qubit is saying. Part of the blame go to Dailytech.

6. All things combined, we know how qubit feels about it. Then he makes a news post about it and try to cram it down our throats as some kind of truth. If it'd been a random forum post/topic, it'd be fine. But it's not. The entire thing is shady and I agree with the IP thing, but it's written in such a way it feels like it's designed not to inform readers, it's about inform/force qubits personal views on us and whatever visitor happen to visit the front page. And I don't like that.

 

[qubit]

Ok analogy time:
Let's say I'm an architect and I design a building. I'd like to think of myself as an artist because I bring beauty into people's lives. It get built and I get paid for the design. Then it's out in the public and it's really nice and people take pictures of it. I get paid only once and it would be considered silly or even crazy if I went around and asked every person, who made a picture of my building, for money ...

The internet is PUBLIC - once you put something on the internet EVERYONE can see it.

I don't see why some mofo has to make money every time a song they made song is played on the radio or because a picture they drew was shown somewhere while I get paid only once...

They get to be lazy and do nothing WHILE GETTING PAID FOR IT while I have to spend countless sleepless nights and take the responsibility of people's lives and yet get paid only once. Why are they considered more important than me?

If I am a doctor and I save your life, I'll get paid only once - I'm not going around asking my patients for a monthly subscription because they're alive thanks to me...

you get a job done - you get paid for it once. You do another one - you get paid again. End of story.

Yup, I agree, it's this sense of entitlement from royalties that doesn't seem right, does it? Why do work only once and keep getting paid for it over and over and over...?

In every other line of work, people have to keep, well, working to get paid and that's only fair. I have an excellent example of someone who produces content and only gets paid once for it and is happy with it: me. Yup, I get paid a small amount for each news/editorial article I write for TPU and that's it. My articles can then be re-read, remixed and reused in any way you like. Enforcing royalties is neither possible nor desirable for me (what, stick it behind a f* paywall? No thanks!) My articles become copyright of TPU, as I work for W1zz, but if I was publishing these on my own site, I wouldn't even use copyright at all. The only thing I ask is that if someone uses my work, then they credit the source with a small linking credit like we do on here, or do so inline within the body of the article. That's it. This small piece of etiquette is all I ask. Of course, some reporters can't even be bothered to do that.

A fine example of someone who doesn't give the appropriate simple credit, thereby infringing copyright, is Hilbert Hagedoorn of Guru3D. He often uses other people's articles without credit, don't you Hilbert? And here are the screenshots of his HD 7770 pictures and benchmarks story and mine to prove it:

Just in case you're tempted to change it, buddy.

My article is here and his derivative is here. Note that mine is also a derivative, but I remember to give credit to the original source. So, how can I tell that he's copied/lifted it (not stolen) it? Because the following line is identical, along with the way the benchmarks sentence is written: "ChipHell has leaked more pictures with some benchmarks to go with them. The test setup consisted of an Ivy Bridge ES CPU – Core i5-3550K at 3.3Ghz and Z77 chipset-based motherboard. The driver used was the AMD Catalyst 8.940 RC2, giving the following 3DMark benchmark results:"

Don't forget that little credit in your next article eh, Hilbert? What, you won't? I didn't think so. Here's a screenshot of my original:

And finally, copying is never stealing, because the original creator still has the original work (like I do here) - that's why there's that word infringement, because if I don't want someone to copy my work, that's what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. I know MailMan doesn't agree with me on this point and it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree unfortunately, I'm cool with that. So, in the example above, Hilbert of Guru3D has infringed TPU copyrights by copying without crediting, but not stolen anything. Big difference.

Finally, to anyone that thinks I use IE as my browser, I don't, I use Firefox. I preferred to grab the screenshots in IE, that's all.

 

[Ahhzz]

*noise*
And I don't like that.

Whatev.

 

[qubit]

So? Six months ago this would've been locked, for good reasons. People, including me, throw hissyfits with this subject.



Well I do like to troll qubits threads when I don't like them (I think I promised him once I'd do this), but fine.

So, you admit to throwing pathetic hissyfits and trolling do you? You've just lost all credibility and nothing else you say is worth replying to.

You do know that trolling is expressly against the rules of this forum, don't you?

 

[Frick]

So, you admit to throwing pathetic hissyfits and trolling do you? You've just lost all credibility and nothing else you say is worth replying to.

You do know that trolling is expressly against the rules of this forum, don't you?

Then how about replying to the things I said that wasn't trolling or hissyfits? That post was an effort to make something NOT trolling and/or hissyfitting. And if you feel I'm unfair or incorrect, say so and tell me why so that I can correct myself. I'll do it if there's reason for it.

 

[DaC]

Ok analogy time:
Let's say I'm an architect and I design a building. I'd like to think of myself as an artist because I bring beauty into people's lives. It get built and I get paid for the design. Then it's out in the public and it's really nice and people take pictures of it. I get paid only once and it would be considered silly or even crazy if I went around and asked every person, who made a picture of my building, for money ...

The internet is PUBLIC - once you put something on the internet EVERYONE can see it.

I don't see why some mofo has to make money every time a song they made song is played on the radio or because a picture they drew was shown somewhere while I get paid only once...

They get to be lazy and do nothing WHILE GETTING PAID FOR IT while I have to spend countless sleepless nights and take the responsibility of people's lives and yet get paid only once. Why are they considered more important than me?

If I am a doctor and I save your life, I'll get paid only once - I'm not going around asking my patients for a monthly subscription because they're alive thanks to me...

you get a job done - you get paid for it once. You do another one - you get paid again. End of story.

This is the kind of stuff I'm referring to.... the industry will have to find a way to adapt... trying using the old ways to make money on a different time with different medias is just crazy, this isn't how things works, this has never worked this way...
Maybe we could go back in time and stop industrial revolution because it would make some handcraft workers out of business....

But I do care about honest people make a living of it... not some crap guy or girl buying airplanes and stuff on peoples money.
I know many good artists that make their living giving for free their albums on the net and being asked to play live, but they ain't got any glamor because just like every single living human being they're just regular people.

MM You really got stuff wrong if you think anyone here is defending piracy, anyway I don't blame you, it's just how you see thinks based on your experiences, but you're just getting everybody here wrong.

But don't think the media industry will be successful trying to label the honest working people as criminal just to make money. And please don't do that yourself.
Your art and living isn't really the concern at all from this type of law. People behind this law don't give a s**t to your living and you'll hardly be able to put someone into trial for money of copyrights based on it... I'll say it again: This kind of stuff has nothing to do with your work.....
Don't be fooled mate, you're just everybody else in their vision.

PS: and if you think the US don't use face recognition or that this isn't underway there.... LoL.... you really have to google about it...

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ok analogy time:
Let's say I'm an architect and I design a building. I'd like to think of myself as an artist because I bring beauty into people's lives. It get built and I get paid for the design. Then it's out in the public and it's really nice and people take pictures of it. I get paid only once and it would be considered silly or even crazy if I went around and asked every person, who made a picture of my building, for money ...

The internet is PUBLIC - once you put something on the internet EVERYONE can see it.

I don't see why some mofo has to make money every time a song they made song is played on the radio or because a picture they drew was shown somewhere while I get paid only once...

They get to be lazy and do nothing WHILE GETTING PAID FOR IT while I have to spend countless sleepless nights and take the responsibility of people's lives and yet get paid only once. Why are they considered more important than me?

If I am a doctor and I save your life, I'll get paid only once - I'm not going around asking my patients for a monthly subscription because they're alive thanks to me...

you get a job done - you get paid for it once. You do another one - you get paid again. End of story.

Apparently you don't understand how copyrights works do you? A lot of times artists don't get paid until end sale. So for every COPY SOLD they get a cut. As a matter of fact a lot of artists have to pay to have their stuff published just so they can get a cut of the return sales. Some studios lend you time or equipment to develop things for them to sell. If it doesnt then YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK. A lot of times its not even your fault. Your whole analogy shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. NONE OF YOU HAVE A RIGHT to copy something you didn't pay for.

 

[LordJummy]

Like I said the sloth of pirates have spoon fed the US goverment a reason to invade my home. Nice job guys.

This is a sick way of thinking. You are blaming the people who are pirating software and art for SOPA and other ridiculous forms of censorship? That is flat out wrong. They are accountable for their own actions, but not those of others. The people who are creating and enforcing SOPA and other similar bills/laws are to blame, and no one else.

Analogy (explains that you are blaming the wrong party):

I have a tall tree in my back yard that my neighbor thinks is stealing his view of the sky.

My neighbor cuts down my tree forcefully to get his view of the sky back.

Am I to blame for my own tree being cut down? NO. The guy who cut the tree down is to blame, and no one else. He cut it down, not me.

The government should not have the power and unyielding control that is has now, period. You should be blaming the individuals who have been pillaging and destroying the US government and economy for centuries, leaving us with this bloated mess.


In my opinion your stance comes off as lazy and a bit arrogant, and you are blaming a large majority of users on the internet. Also, until you can prove that you don't pirate anything and never have, you should probably stop calling people you don't know such insulting names.

 

[amd/atifiend]

+1...we need to put quibit in office!

we elect the very people who do this to us.....wise up and elect people who share the same ideals we do.

 

[Frick]

This is a sick way of thinking. You are blaming the people who are pirating software and art for SOPA and other ridiculous forms of censorship? That is flat out wrong. They are accountable for their own actions, but not those of others. The people who are creating and enforcing SOPA and other similar bills/laws are to blame, and no one else.

Analogy (explains that you are blaming the wrong party):

I have a tall tree in my back yard that my neighbor thinks is stealing his view of the sky.

My neighbor cuts down my tree forcefully to get his view of the sky back.

Am I to blame for my own tree being cut down? NO. The guy who cut the tree down is to blame, and no one else. He cut it down, not me.

The government should not have the power and unyielding control that is has now, period. You should be blaming the individuals who have been pillaging and destroying the US government and economy for centuries, leaving us with this bloated mess.

I don't follow the tree analogy. Trees grow by themselves, pirates don't. Would there be as issue if there were no pirates? No, probably not. There would not be a reason to go after them, but now they do exist.

 

[TheMailMan78]

This is a sick way of thinking. You are blaming the people who are pirating software and art for SOPA and other ridiculous forms of censorship? That is flat out wrong. They are accountable for their own actions, but not those of others. The people who are creating and enforcing SOPA and other similar bills/laws are to blame, and no one else.

Analogy (explains that you are blaming the wrong party):

I have a tall tree in my back yard that my neighbor thinks is stealing his view of the sky.

My neighbor cuts down my tree forcefully to get his view of the sky back.

Am I to blame for my own tree being cut down? NO. The guy who cut the tree down is to blame, and no one else. He cut it down, not me.

The government should not have the power and unyielding control that is has now, period. You should be blaming the individuals who have been pillaging and destroying the US government and economy for centuries, leaving us with this bloated mess.


In my opinion your stance comes off as lazy and a bit arrogant, and you are blaming a large majority of users on the internet. Also, until you can prove that you don't pirate anything and never have, you should probably stop calling people you don't know such insulting names.

I know pirating better then anyone on this forum. This is why I know the mentality behind it. You're not fooling anyone. If you pirate your a lazy thief. End of story. No matter how many times you repeat the Robin Hood fantasy its still theft. No matter how you paint yourselves as "freedom fighters" your thieves. There are few on here that are open about it. At least I can respect them. They know what they are. The ones I have issue with are the ones trying to justify their laziness. Trying to be hero's for being bums.

See I know both ends of this story. Been there done that. Intellectual property is PROPERTY.

 

[HalfAHertz]

Apparently you don't understand how copyrights works do you? A lot of times artists don't get paid until end sale. So for every COPY SOLD they get a cut. As a matter of fact a lot of artists have to pay to have their stuff published just so they can get a cut of the return sales. Some studios lend you time or equipment to develop things for them to sell. If it doesnt then YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK. A lot of times its not even your fault. Your whole analogy shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. NONE OF YOU HAVE A RIGHT to copy something you didn't pay for.

I am not very familiar with that, you are right. Sounds like a very cut-throat practice by these design studios, just like the one the copyright companies use on musicians to exploit them. Is there no way to bypass them?

 

[TheMailMan78]

I am not very familiar with that, you are right. Sounds like a very cut-throat practice by these design studios, just like the one the copyright companies use on musicians to exploit them. Is there no way to bypass them?

Sure. A lot of people do. Very, VERY few of them make it. Exposure is everything and not just mass exposure. Demographic exposure. See most artist don't get paid like a doctor or even a mechanic. You see the logo in my avatar? I might be lucky to get someone to pay 250 bucks for that out right. Thats if I can even find someone to buy it. Took me a while to render too. Could you support a family on that? No. Of course not. Now if I got a dollar every time it was posted or used then I might be able to make a living......maybe. This is what pirates do to guys like me. They take away that copyright dollar away and enjoy my work. Ive been ripped off more times then I can count too. Hell even a mobo maker borrowed HEAVY from that very design. If it was a paying job I would have pursued them too. But that logo was for the community. A gift.

Publishers are the devil. But without them I could not make a living. So excuse me if I value the food in my children's stomachs over people being able to download things they didn't pay for.

 

[theJesus]

Yup, I agree, it's this sense of entitlement from royalties that doesn't seem right, does it? Why do work only once and keep getting paid for it over and over and over...?

Devil's advocate here (ironic, I know): You don't keep getting paid unless you own the copyright. Often, somebody who didn't do any of the work keeps getting paid because they own the copyright and they're probably the ones that paid you in the first place.

Let's go back to the architect analogy that somebody mentioned. You get commissioned to design an apartment complex. Alright, you do the job and you get paid for it. Now, whoever paid for it owns the complex that is built and can collect money from anybody who lives there for as long as they live there, because they are only renting.

 

[digibucc]

You see the logo in my avatar? I might be lucky to get someone to pay 250 bucks for that out right. Thats if I can even find someone to buy it. Took me a while to render too. Could you support a family on that? No. Of course not. Now if I got a dollar every time it was posted or used then I might be able to make a living......maybe.

what about the kid at mcdonalds? he can work his ass off and not make a cent more than he would have otherwise. all day for $50, can you survive on that?

ok , an adult with a real job - I spend 4 hours fixing a computer, make $100 , and that's it. over. I can't ask for money EVERY time they use their computer, why should you be able to ask for money every time someone uses that image? i know it seems fair to you, but not to anyone else. anyone that spends the same time you spent, working at a factory or anything else - makes less, and only once. you're just upset that you have to work EVERY DAY, and keep doing it to make more money. welcome to life dude.

art is not a necessity, therefore if you want to make a living based on it you should be prepared to compromise and make less than someone working in a necessary career, like a doctor. it's ridiculous imo you would even use that as an example. i know you weren't comparing the importance of your jobs, but still.

if i missed your original point, i assume this summed it up:

So thank you pirates. Thank you for giving them a reason to take away more of my rights. Because your lazy and have no respect I now have to deal with more government intrusion. Joe Sixpack thanks you too. Thank you so much for your "Good Fight".

screw that. they would find a way to do it anyway, and blaming the existence of pirates for the insane practices government and corporations take is ridiculous. IT WILL NEVER BE ERADICATED, EVER. it's that simple. so to pretend as though point->counterpoint is sensible is false. And for the sake of argument, if it WERE eradicated - do you HONESTLY believe it would stop the practices of these companies? it's not about piracy but market control, you can't even resell a game - it's pretty clear imo that this would happen whether there are are 10 pirates or 10 million, and that is not ok.

8-tracks were going to KILL the music industry, then tapes, then cds. vhs and then dvds were going to KILL the movie industry. these are not nice groups of nice people just getting screwed by everyone, these are corporations that rip off their own artists, pissed that they aren't making ENOUGH constantly increasing profit, and paying the government to do something about it. pirates are an excuse, but if they didn't exist there would be another as there ALWAYS has been . though again, it's ridiculous to think they ever could not exist.

 

[LordJummy]

I don't follow the tree analogy. Trees grow by themselves, pirates don't. Would there be as issue if there were no pirates? No, probably not. There would not be a reason to go after them, but now they do exist.

LOL what?

Wait, so you're saying pirates don't grow? Are they not from seed, which is germinated, and then grown? I don't understand what you are saying. Besides the origin of the tree is irrelevant. (trees and humans grow, and they are shaped by the environment around them. not that it has anything to do with this analogy) The analogy was about setting BLAME. I'm guessing you didn't notice?

I know pirating better then anyone on this forum. This is why I know the mentality behind it. You're not fooling anyone. If you pirate your a lazy thief. End of story. No matter how many times you repeat the Robin Hood fantasy its still theft. No matter how you paint yourselves as "freedom fighters" your thieves. There are few on here that are open about it. At least I can respect them. They know what they are. The ones I have issue with are the ones trying to justify their laziness. Trying to be hero's for being bums.

Your point of view and argument on pirates seems "lazy" to me. Just because you were a lazy thief when you pirated does not mean everyone else is the same. Some people pirate because they are lazy, some because they are poor. Others pirate out of compulsion, and then others pirate to sample works of art (music, movies, books) before buying.

Your post indicates you've done a LARGE amount of pirating. You hate pirates. Therefore you hate yourself.

You're projecting yourself on to others, and what seems to be internal self loathing. Who here is claiming to be a "Freedom fighter", and what does that have anything to do with the subject at hand?

I don't see any relevancy to your arguments. I just see an emotional outcry.

 

[Frick]

LOL what?

Wait, so you're saying pirates don't grow? Are they not from seed, which is germinated, and then grown? I don't understand what you are saying. Besides the origin of the tree is irrelevant. (trees and humans grow, and they are shaped by the environment around them. not that it has anything to do with this analogy) The analogy was about setting BLAME. I'm guessing you didn't notice?

I just thought it was a bad analogy is all.

 

[scaminatrix]

Well, I'm absolutely sick of seeing people condone piracy. Maybe if a company pulls some dirty underhanded tactic to get revenge on pirates and actually gets away with it, maybe the situation would be better. But oh no, it seems criminals should be allowed to get away with torrenting forever
It's a shame that some people believe "pirates are right for downloading illegal content but companys are wrong by trying to go after them." Even if they do use the dirtiest tactics.
I just wish a quick death to all torrents

 

[LordJummy]

Well, I'm absolutely sick of seeing people condone piracy. Maybe if a company pulls some dirty underhanded tactic to get revenge on pirates and actually gets away with it, maybe the situation would be better. But oh no, it seems criminals should be allowed to get away with torrenting forever
It's a shame that some people believe "pirates are right for downloading illegal content but companys are wrong by trying to go after them." Even if they do use the dirtiest tactics.
I just wish a quick death to all torrents

This is insanity. You think that suing a bunch of random people for thousands of dollars (which they don't have) is going to HELP? Are you being sarcastic? Please tell me you are joking around.

I don't think this is about justifying piracy. (Piracy is wrong) This is about a specific group of people using an extremely unethical approach to sue possibly innocent people, and all because the movie sucked and they didn't make their money back? You actually think that action is justified?

BTW torrenting is not illegal. bittorrent is a genius method of distributing files over a peer to peer network, which reduces the need for costly dedicated file servers, etc. It promotes redundancy, speed, and anonymity. There is nothing bad about it. That's like saying cars should be made illegal because bank robbers use them to escape. It's just a means of transport. People will always abuse things and exploit them for their personal gain. It doesn't mean everyone using it is bad. I use torrents to distribute files and OS distributions and such, as it gives me an easy way to have redundancy.

your summation makes it quite obvious you have no clue what i or anyone else has been saying, so i don't even know why i bothered to respond.

That's exactly what I thought before posting, but I feel I have an obligation to speak up when someone posts something ignorant and just plain wrong. Bad information is worse than no information sometimes.

I just thought it was a bad analogy is all.

You thought wrong. You completely misunderstood the analogy. Your replies to me so far have been of sub-trolling quality. Just PM me next time if you have confusion with something like this.

 

[digibucc]

Well, I'm absolutely sick of seeing people condone piracy.

it's not about condoning it, but rather recognizing that it does exist, and always will exist. with that in mind it only makes sense to go about trying to stop them rationally, without screwing up their consumers machines, or suing people who did nothing wrong.

It's a shame that some people believe "pirates are right

your summation makes it quite obvious you have no clue what i or anyone else has been saying, so i don't even know why i bothered to respond, but to elaborate:

if you saw a man you knew to be a pedophile, being beaten to death in the street - would you intervene? i would hope so. yes the man has a disgusting problem but he does not deserve a beating death.

so if you intervened, does that mean you support his pedophilia? i don't think so.

we ALL agree piracy is wrong, you don't need to keep reiterating that. that part is accepted and agreed upon, but with that in mind - are the tactics effective or harmful? is it wrong to speak about that simply because the piracy was wrong in the first place? i don't think so. maybe you would have let the man be beaten to death to make a point instead, idk.

 

[scaminatrix]

This is insanity.

YES!

your summation makes it quite obvious you have no clue what i or anyone else has been saying, so i don't even know why i bothered to respond.

I haven't even read half of the posts in this thread; my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I just wanted to feed the troll/s.

if you saw a man you knew to be a pedophile, being beaten to death in the street - would you intervene? i would hope so. yes the man has a disgusting problem but he does not deserve a beating death.

so if you intervened, does that mean you support his pedophilia? i don't think so.

I would join in kicking the f*ck out of him.


Seems you guys don't know me as much as I though you did

 

[DaC]

Seems you guys don't know me as much as I though you did

You're EMO.....

 

[LordJummy]

YES!



I haven't even read half of the posts in this thread; my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I just wanted to feed the troll/s.



I would join in kicking the f*ck out of him.


Seems you guys don't know me as much as I though you did

So in short, you are trolling. That's great. Maybe stick to the nonsense forum for that?

 

[Frick]

You thought wrong. You completely misunderstood the analogy. Your replies to me so far have been of sub-trolling quality. Just PM me next time if you have confusion with something like this.

Sigh, I did not misunderstand (well I did to begin with but then I read it again). I just thought it wasn't good. But whatever.

So, what should we do about pirates then? I think the IP thing will be redone sometime in the future so that we will be held responsible for our own networks.