I pirate everything. Haven't subscribed to a service like Spotify, Netflix, etc. in many years. I can listen to my music in CD-quality and bring it anywhere. Same with any movie, TV show, etc. And I know that no one is selling what I find interesting as analytics data.
At the same time, I want to support creators, and I'll donate/use services like Bandcamp to directly support folks I appreciate. I have a $100/mo "donation" fund.
Has nothing to do with the price as I'm more than happy to support creators. Just not through centralized platform that doesn't respect my freedom.
I channeled the money I was spending on YouTubeTV into a seedbox that has 0 personal information about me, paid for with Monero (XMR). Much better bang for the buck and completely removes all the potential adverse legal effects that you could have by torrenting on your home / work connection.
I was happily paying a netflix and spotify sub for over a decade, but once we started getting greedy with Paramount+, AppleTV+, Discovery+, Peacock, etc. I decided it was high time to sail the seven seas again, which I hadn't done since college.
I keep waiting for all the netflix-likes to fail and people go back to just selling their content to netflix, but I don't think it's going to happen. I might be yaaar matey for the rest of my life.
How do you access the seedbox anonymously? Unless you use Tor (which doesn't seem practical for movies), they surely see where your connections come from, don't they?
Right. But if you only buy a seedbox and connect to it from your home IP, then it does not matter that you paid with bitcoins, right?
If you connect to it through a VPN, then that's a second level of indirection, but still you must trust the VPN. Because even if you paid with bitcoins, the VPN knows your home IP and it knows that you connect to a seedbox.
A VPN service would have no way of knowing the box you are connecting to is a seed box. Particularly if you connect over a different IP than you seed from.
Piracy is a local tort at worst, and not a crime. Certainly not something that can compel mandatory IP disclosure from multiple foreign entities at the same time for a US copyright claimant targeting an individual.
Even then if access to said seedbox is shared with multiple people they would need to prove who actually executed the choice to seed which files. Now you need a court order to get the FBI to travel to another country to use a hotplug device to seize the entire machine with memory in tact and do forensics.
If you do not do any logging then only recent files could be claimed if at all.
That much work to prosecute someone over their two most recently downloaded movies at worst? Never going to happen, and it never has.
There are exactly 0 cases of foreign seedboxes being seized over copyright claims.
I am not a lawyer and do not currently operate any seedboxes so take this as you choose.
Interesting points indeed. Connecting through a VPN may be enough for the this case. I guess I mostly wanted to make it clear that it's not "perfectly anonymous" just because one paid with bitcoins. And of course that if you connect directly to the seedbox, then you trust 100% this seedbox to be legit.
I think the risk of not using a vpn to access it is pretty much zero as these seedboxes are deliberately designed to essentially eliminate this issue (i.e., business in one country, hardware is another, likely minimal logs)
I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble using a seedbox - likely because there's enough much lower hanging fruit to prosecute
If you DO NOT use a VPN, you 100% trust the seedbox. You trust that they "are deliberately designed to essentially eliminate this issue". That's fine for me, but it's important to know that it's about trust.
If you use a VPN, then you do distribute that trust between the VPN and the seedbox, which makes it much better already.
The challenge with this is actually supporting creators for complex works that are published by these companies.
Take a TV show for example - hundreds of people work on these things. There's no real way to support the show when you pirate something. TV shows don't have patreons or kickstarters.
Piracy is quite attractive because of how hostile the copyright holders are to end users. Sticking it to the megacorps that treat us with such disdain, even in these small ways, feels great. But this leaves a difficult question of how to actually support the people who are making the thing.
As far as I can tell, if you are serious about this, the closest thing to directly supporting a complex creative endeavor like a TV show is to "purchase" it from Amazon. Of course, you realize you "own" nothing, and Amazon still takes its cut, but at least it's a "sale" for the specific work in some spreadsheet.
I think this is where NFT could actually be useful. Buy a video, and you have a license for it. The money goes to the people who made it. Maybe you resell that license sometime, whatever.
The point is that you can get the actual video file from ~wherever~ and you're legally fine because you own the license.
Now the streaming platforms compete for being the best video delivery service for the array of things you own a license for.
Movies Anywhere is the closest thing to this I have seen. It only works for movies though, and it's a centralized service.
I wonder why not. If you're already doing payroll for the production of a TV show, it should be trivial to express each payout as a percentage (this particular gaffer gets 0.56%, etc).
It would then be easy to encode that in software somewhere (smart contract?) such that when payments come in, they get split up and disbursed accordingly.
If you coupled the addresses of these contracts with the content itself (as metadata on the file or in a lookup table somewhere, keyed by CTPH) consumers could then be choosy about whether they're supporting content which transparently supports all of its creators vs content that just lets a middleman soak up the profits.
I honestly don’t feel bad at all. I am fairly sure the actual creators barely get any compensations from plus 1 subscriber, so in effect one only hurts these streaming sites, which really should finally get the message sent by that.
Aye matey. Only thing I pay for is Bandcamp since it goes direct to the creator and steam games because the experience is amazing esp since I game exclusively on Linux.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
If Stallman had not written gcc, gdb, his version of emacs, the basic gnu utils,
and, most importantly, the GPL, there would probably be no "Linux". Torvalds would have had to write a complete OS, and he probably would have got a job and a life before he accomplished that.
It's too bad RMS got sidetracked with Hurd. But, the GNU system now runs with several kernels - the Linux kernel is just the most developed and best known one.
There are also operating systems using Linux that have no GNU at all. So it doesn't bother me at all when someone calls it Linux, and I'll continue to call it that myself unless there is additional context needed. Even then, I'd probably just reference specific GNU tools since there are other userspace tools on the system that are also necessary, but are not GNU.
Lead isn't added to help increase the lifetime of anything. In-fact, that's hilarious, because lead fouls spark plugs and the rest of the engine. I've personally removed spark plugs with pea sized nuggets of lead wedged in the electrode. Problems caused by lead (e.g., stuck valves) are probably the #1 reason you have to overhaul cylinders. Lead is an octane booster, that's it.
"Knocking" is an antiquated term. Knocking = detonation, and any severe detonation would destroy an aircraft engine. For example, this is why we take off with our mixture so rich, to create a huge margin against detonation by lowering internal cylinder pressures.
> I don't want my platform to say anything about this
You should have the freedom to start such a forum without being regulated out of existence and join such a forum without fear of isolation. You should not be able to force other privately owned forums to adopt your view.
If they ask Twitter or some other platform to derank your view and manage to convince the platform to do so, that’s an end result of free speech.
One of the main arguments for free speech is that you let everyone talk without government interference and let private actors decide what are good and bad ideas.
Everyone in this post who wants these public platforms to be forced to host all speech sound like what they really need is to have these platforms to be nationalized and run with government rules. What’s confusing to me is the majority of the people I see who want these platforms to host all speech are also in the same group that thinks everything should be done by companies and not the government
This is exactly what's going on. Twitter censors one type of opinion and elevates another. People with the opinions which are currently being elevated are terrified of the potential loss of social power.
For what it's worth, I think this fear is misplaced. Unless Elon can figure out how to run Twitter without ads, woke-bigotry is safe as long as advertisers are using woke politics to distract from their evils.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be a pretty good baseline.
> Art. 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
I appreciate your perspective here. I feel like the whole world is crazy if I have to dig 3-4 pages before finding an analysis like this.
I suppose that's representative of how we're seeing so many folks gloss over Dr. Malone's CV and so many other facts about this podcast in particular. Could it just be a criticism bandwagon where no one is _actually_ listening to Rogan?
From my observations most people don't even know that Malone was on the show. Most criticism that I've seen during this latest drama is targeted directly at Joe Rogan himself. It very much feels like a bandwagon against "bro science", even if wildly misjudged.
The problem with Malone is that his theories are in disagreement with the vast majority of subject matter experts. His CV, while real, isn't without issues, and his involvement in mRNA research is often misrepresented in the sense that it fails to mention he was just one of hundreds of researchers that contributed to getting where we are today, and that his contribution rests on experiments over 30 years ago.
Science doesn't work flawlessly, nor does it rely on some magical subset of the population deemed "scientists" having perfect knowledge and judgement. The rest of the process matters, precisely because scientists make mistakes likely at rates not really any different than anybody else. By waving Malone's scientist credentials, JR is implicitly saying that this story is science, but that whole angle is actually anti-science! Credentials alone don't define the scientific process.
Furthermore, people haven't internalized how difficult much of this is. Scientists make mistakes all the time because despite professionalism interpreting data isn't easy, and even peer review doesn't catch most errors. As a symptom of that consider what's underlying the replication crisis in science (which doesn't affect all science equally). Interpreting messy data with lots of confounders and imperfect experimental setups, imperfect measurements of those confounders, imperfect statistical models that simplify distribution characteristics, imperfect statistical tools that cannot capture all higher order effects, imperfect generalization from the specific experiment to the interesting take-home claim, etc etc etc may well be impossible in most cases. Finding the few nuggets of truth where we can cut through all that trickiness is not easy. And identifying flaws in such research is not easy either; experts get it wrong all the time. That's OK, that's normal. The hope isn't that every scientific claim is perfect, it's that the system eventually converges to a slightly better understanding of the world than we have now.
If Malone wants to present his interpretation to his peers: that's great, and fine. They're used to uncertainty, and have the best tools and training to deal with the cognitive dissonance of having lots of partially contradictory research. But his arguments seem to have failed to convince them - at least I'm not hearing much backup. However, cherry-picking "experts" with non-conventional views and presenting their interpretation to an audience that cannot interpret the uncertainty behind Malone's claims while supporting his credentials is essentially lying to listeners; you're encouraging them to draw false conclusions.
People are social animals; we're uniquely good at learning - and copying from - others. It's that copying that is our greatest strength, while also being a risk when mixed up with mass-media's ability to selectively amplify voices. And we all run our economies fully embracing that; which is why businesses hire experts and try to avoid all kinds of biases when it hits their bottom line; it's why advertisements work as a business; it's why we talk about propaganda and use information warfare in actual military conflicts. People aren't very good at filtering and processing information; they're great at _copying_ it and distributing that knowledge through social circles. Knowledge is power, but it's also a vulnerability.
If we cannot acknowledge our cognitive weaknesses, we cannot prevent being ruled by them. To put it another way: memes are real, and have the power to control us if we're not careful. Giving Malone an unfiltered megaphone through which to amplify what most other experts appear to conclude is nonsense is not being careful.
They OCI images generated are super light weight.