Posts made by raphjd

The article details were in the opening post.

Advocate, The,  May 24, 2005  by Mike Hudson

@CountAchee:

Most likely you all will disagree, but I think that should be multiple categories for each torrent, for example, a video that could be a hunks, bareback, oral sex all-in-one and so on 

If the current torrent list is anything to go by, people will be spamming their torrents in every category.

It's not just you.  The new forums are much faster.

from zeropaid.com;

RIAA Wants Songwriter Royalties Cut by 39%?

Proves it doesn't care about music artists and petitions copyright judges to lower rate from 9 cents per song, about 13% of the wholesale price, down to 8% of the wholesale price, or around 5 1/2 cents per song.

There is an interesting report via the Hollywood Reporter from early last week that proves once and for all that the RIAA really doesn't care about music artists, or "content providers" as it often refers to them as. For record labels are working to lower the "mechanical royalty" it's required to pay to songwriters and publishers.

The RIAA says the current rate of 9 cents per song, about 13% of the wholesale price, is "out of whack with the rest of the world and historical context" and wants it reduced to 8% of the wholesale price, or around 5 1/2 cents per song. That's a reduction of around 39% in revenue for those actually responsible for creating the music in the first place!

"The contributions songwriters and music publishers make to the creation of songs, and to the music industry overall, are significant – indeed critical -- to the success of the industry," Israelite said. "The NMPA will fight vigorously in the coming weeks to make sure songwriters and music publishers are fairly compensated for their work."

The RIAA defends the move by noting how it has to suffer while music publishers have not. "Record companies are suffering a contraction of their business at a time when music publisher revenues and margins have increased markedly," the trade group wrote. "While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to steadily rising mechanical royalty rates and alternative revenue streams made possible, but not enjoyed, by record companies."

Say what? The whole reason why record companies are "contracting" is because their very business model is doing so. It only makes sense that as music goes digital, that as physical CD stores close, those who marketed, manufactured, distributed, or had anything to do with them would find their jobs at risk. It's called Economics 101, and so to try and get a slice of other people's revenue simply because one refuses to adapt and find new sources of revenue is abhorrent.

Cutting the royalties paid to music publishers and songwriters won't solve the music industry's woes, instead it will only exacerbate the problem of a business model that refuses to recognize the changing landscape.

At least this proves once and for all that the RIAA really doesn't care about music artists like it tries to so often claim.

from zeropaid.com;

Verizon to Hollywood: 'We Won't Help You Fight Piracy'

Refuses to take on the role of traffic cop, and says that it generally sees increased traffic as a "good thing."

In a recent interview, Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president for public affairs, criticizes Hollywood's efforts to get ISPs like AT&T to begin identifying and preventing copyrighted material from being illegally shared on its network.

Verizon seemingly acknowledges the fallacy of trying to monitor and police traffic on its broadband network, as well as the futility of even the most well financed efforts in doing so.

“We generally are reluctant to get into the business of examining content that flows across our networks and taking some action as a result of that content,” he said.

Now The fact that AT&T is even considering the proposal seems crazy in its own right that is, until one considers that it just underwent a controversial, and hugely partisan merger with BellSouth, which gave it effective control over more than half the telephone and Internet access lines in the US! If you want evidence of it attempting to cozy up to politicians and the entertainment industry that spreads around millions in contributions, then look no further.

Tauke also points out that unlike AT&T, which seems overly burdened by all of the increased traffic thanks to the illegal file-sharing of video content, it embraces the increased need for services from its customers. "We see substantial increases in the volume of traffic," he says. "Generally we see that as a good thing"

"We have more customers paying for more services we provide."

On the issue if BitTorrent throttling, or traffic shaping, Tauke says that “We don’t want to solve any network congestion issues by restricting the flow of certain kinds of traffic."

He then noted 3 clear observations about how "examining content" is a bad idea.

1. The slippery slope.

Once you start going down the path of looking at the information going down the network, there are many that want you to play the role of policeman. Stop illegal gambling offshore. Stop pornography. Stop a whole array of other kinds of activities that some may think inappropriate.

2. It opens up potential liability for failing to block copyrighted work.

When you look back at the history of copyright legislation, there has been an effort by Hollywood to pin the liability for copyright violations on the network that transmits the material. It is no secret they think we have deeper pockets than others and we are easy-to-find targets.

3. Privacy.

Anything we do has to balance the need of copyright protection with the desire of customers for privacy.

It sounds like there may just be an ISP out there with some common sense after all. It's a dirty little secret among them that illegal file-sharing is what's driving the demand for faster and faster internet connection speeds.

Streaming video from YouTube and e-mail in no way justifies expensive $45 dollars a month subscription packages offering 7Mbps DL and 512Kbps UL speeds! It's illegal file-sharers who are driving the demand for such services and as Tauke says, at least Verizon sees the need for such services as a "good thing."

From zeropaid.com;

UK P2P Crackdown to Fuel Wi-Fi Hijacking?

Illegal file-sharers who get their accounts terminated by ISPs may resort to piggybacking on other people's unprotected wi-fi access points and lead to complications in enforcing new plan.

After recent news points to the distinct possibility that British ISPs just may become de facto copyright police for UK authorities after all, network security firm Sophos warns of an impending explosion in the number of people illegally piggybacking on other people's Wi-Fi internet service.

For Security firm Sophos points out that the UK government's proposal to make ISPs ban illegal file-sharers from the internet will mean that some people will inevitably be looking for alternatives after being blacklisted for infractions of copyright laws. It predicts that the plan will ultimately cause headaches for ISPs and Wi-Fi users, as users could claim that other people have been illegally piggybacking on their internet services.

Last November, a Sophos poll of 560 computer users revealed that 54 percent have stolen Wi-Fi internet access in the past.

"Pressure is being put on ISPs to take action, but an open Wi-Fi hotspot may mean that it is you who ends up disconnected from the net while your next door neighbor is happily watching the Hollywood blockbuster they stole via your internet connection," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos.

"People who illegally download from the net material they haven't paid for aren't going to have any qualms about stealing someone else's internet connection. The widespread scale of the problem not only means that there are likely to be victims, but it also gives those people who have been making illegal downloads a plausible defense."

Under a 'three-strikes' regime, customers making illegal downloads will first receive an email warning, then a suspension of their account, and finally termination of their contract. According to reports, ISPs that fail to enforce the rules could be prosecuted and details of suspected customers passed onto the courts.

"The ISPs are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place - they are being leaned on by the movie and music industry to block pirate downloads, but at the same time they don't want to alienate their customers by accusing them of something they didn't do," explained Cluley. "There is no 100% solution for blocking illegal downloads which doesn't also inconvenience the ."

The proposed plan, which the Government is due to unveil next week, will require ISPs to take action against the estimated six million users a year in the UK who access pirated material. But, the big question is will this mean that action is also taken against those who fail to properly secure their Wi-Fi routers? Will failure to heed warnings to "lock up" also lead to a termination of Internet services?

Unfortunately at this time we do not have the staff to run a full set of forums in Spanish.

I've been reading a large number of articles about P2P and various governments and I must say that Germany is the first EU country to tell the major industries to go screw themselves.

Most other countries have been handing over whatever the music and record industries want and in many cases even allowing them to be a part of police raids. In most countries, this is normally illegal, but some how they manage to get in on the action.  It's also illegal in most countries for police and the gov to actively help in civil matters such as this.

Think about it.  If you wanted to sue your neighbors for not returning your BBQ {outdoor cooking grill}, you will never get the police to raid their house and let you join in. Nor will the police/gov wiretap their phones and internet for you to help you with your civil case.

(As they have said things against gay people in my presence before they knew)

See, another example of closed mindedness from heteros.  They would have kept saying that kind of crap if you never told them.

I'm willing to bet that they still don't like gays overall.  It's easy for them to accept you since they have known you for a while, but most likely their view of other gays hasn't changed in the least.

There was a study done about 2 years ago that showed that heteros when thinking about gays, focus on the sex, not the person.

From TorrentFreak.com;

Danish Pirate Bay Block Breaks EU Law
Written by Ernesto on February 13, 2008

Last week a Danish court ordered the ISP “Tele2? to block its customers access to The Pirate Bay. The decision heated the debate on ISPs Internet filtering, and it now turns out that filtering traffic to The Pirate Bay is actually illegal according to European law.

In last week’s court ruling it was concluded that “Tele2? had assisted in copyright infringement because they give their customers access to The Pirate Bay, thereby copying copyrighted material in their routers. It reads: “The telephone company’s dissemination of access to the www.thepiratebay.org entails the transmission of copyright protected material through the companies routers.”

A crucial factor in the ruling is thus that the ISP commits copyright infringement in their routers when they allow access to The Pirate Bay. An absurd claim of course, and even more serious, it opposes the Infosoc Directive, that formed the basis of the Danish copyright law.

In in Article 5 of the Infosoc Directive it is clearly stated that “copying in routers” is allowed, as an exception to and a limitation of the rights holders’ exclusive rights. Even more so, this is non-negotiable, and every member state of the EU must accept it. Oscar Swartz, an Internet pioneer and writer in Sweden who has been researching the case extensively rightly argues that the Danish court misinterpreted the Directive in this case.

The misuse of the article in question has been confirmed by Cecilia Renfors, a Swedish judge and special governmental investigator who had the assignment to propose new legislation to combat unauthorized file-sharing. “She refers to the former opinion by the Swedish government and reconfirms that a Danish model would NOT be compatible with Article 5.1 in the Infosoc Directive. She also repeats the opinion that the Danish way actually nullifies the whole purpose of that Article,” Oscar writes.

The Danish ISP Business association has decided that they will challenge the decision in court. Ib Tolstrup, the director of the association said in a podcast interview with Computerworld that Tele2 is going to challenge the ruling, as they realize they are the only nation in Europe that talks about “copying in the routers”. Tolstrup further said that, if Denmark wishes to be a top IT nation, the topic must be put on the political agenda because a Google block is not far away if they do not challenge the courts decision.

In a comment to TorrentFreak Swartz said: “I am surprised that the Danish ISPs have simply accepted the rulings in Denmark when they are so obviously illogical and dangerous. The courts say that any network provider performs “copying” in their routers. If that is correct the consequences are enormous and The Pirate Bay and the two other cases in Denmark would just be the beginning.”

Swartz continues: “I think the case shows that we have to fight all the time. Stand up. Not back down. Work hard. Make research. Try to get the message out to media. What I miss in Sweden, and Denmark of course, is professors and lawyers who are also participating in the fight for communications freedom. Like in the EFF in the U.S. where top professors and lawyers donate time and knowledge to support cases in court. Where are they here?”

In a response to the courts decision, The Pirate Bay launched jesperbay.org. The site is named after Jesper Bay, the head of the Danish IFPI, and gives detailed instructions for affected customers on how to regain access to The Pirate Bay.

Interestingly, it turns out that the block by Tele2 didn’t have the effect that the IFPI was hoping for. On the contrary, Pirate Bay traffic from Denmark went up, instead of down. However, this case is about more than The Pirate Bay, it is about censoring the Internet.

@unleet:

Personally, I'm fine with a reduction since any sanely written BT client will snub peers who aren't uploading much anyway. So even when people "leech" they're still contributing to the overall swarm speed while they're downloading.

The ratio requirements will be changing again.

http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=2690.0

To the vast majority of heteros, I'm nothing more than what I do with my cock.  To most heteros, I'm not a human, I'm just a fag.

I see a bit of inequality here from the OP.  We can't dislike something heteros do, while heteros are able to despise what we do.

EDIT: To quote GWB in a speech when he was running for his 2nd term "they aren't people, they are homosexuals".  This was how he defended how he could be a christian and oppose equal rights.

As a member of 5 months, you should know better than to post live links.

I think they need time to see what it can do and how to work it.

The discussion stalled for a bit so Tom could get the new forum software set up.

After he gets a good night's sleep it's time to press him on the issue. 

It was leaked yesterday that the UK gov was planning this exact kind of thing.

The really sneaky thing is that the UK gov planned to force it into law without a vote in Parliament, using the "white paper" system.

NOTE: The "white paper" system is similar to Presidential Executive Orders in the US.

Who needs porn when you have new forum software to play with.  ;D

BTW, I'll be testing out some new features, so if you see anything odd, it's just me playing.

DOJ Ends Gay Group Ban
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: February 6, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET

(Washington) The Department of Justice has ended a five year old policy of denying an LGBT employee group the same privileges it offers other minority groups.

In 2003 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft told DOJ Pride that it could no longer hold its annual gay pride event on DOJ property.  Ashcroft at the time said that it was Bush administration policy that only events that received a presidential proclamation could be held on government property.

Justice Department workers had celebrated Pride in the Great Hall of DOJ headquarters every June since the mid 1990s when President Bill Clinton first declared a Gay Pride Month.  Bush has declined throughout his presidency to issue a proclamation.

Ashcroft also told the employee organization that it was barred from posting notices of its meetings on DOJ bulletin boards or distribute such messages through the department's e-mail system.

Ashcroft took the action a week after the Rev. Jerry Falwell issued a warning to President Bush and the Republican leadership to stop "catering to gays" or lose the support of Christian conservatives.

The ban on DOJ Pride continued under Alberto Gonzales.

The new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, now has reversed that decision.

Mukasey has told DOJ Pride that DOJ will give the organization the same rights as all other DOJ employee groups. In a statement to the group Mukasey said that the department will "foster an environment in which diversity is valued, understood and sought."

At the time Ashcroft imposed the ban DOJ Pride had about 200 members.  That is now down to 150 members.

Ashcroft was not alone in clamping down on LGBT federal workers.

Special Counsel Scott Bloch, the man responsible for protecting whistleblowers and investigating complaints of discrimination by federal workers, refused to take on complaints of discrimination based on sexuality.

Bloch's stonewalling complaints of discrimination by LGBT federal workers dates to February 2004 when he ordered references to sexual orientation removed from the Office of the Special Counsel website. Since 1998, when President Bill Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting bias in the civil service, the OSC has taken that to include sexuality.

A month after the references disappeared from the OSC website Bloch said gay workers were no longer protected.

After intense pressure from Federal Globe - the LGBT organization for federal civil servants - and from Democrats on The Hill, the White House said it would honor the Executive Order signed by Clinton that that had been taken as assurance LGBT workers had civil rights protections.

But with Bloch's approval, several union contracts negotiated with various branches of the government removed the list of categories that are protected replacing them with the more nebulous phrase "any class protected by law."

Appearing in May 2005, before the the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce and the District of Columbia, Bloch said that his interpretation of the Clinton executive order cannot be used to protect gay workers because it does not specifically name LGBT workers.

BTW, B is the best answer.

Upload everything.

You are reading that wrong.

The most wanted list is the list of the torrents that are downloaded the most. It has nothing to do with being the most requested.