100% with you! It so pleasant for the soul to hear somebody try to find positive solution

 

Ty for explaination.

 

sorry saint i didn't see this till after i retaliated ... I would just like to oppologise I took it as banter anyway which i am sure that's all it is

PS feel free to delete my post

 

Last edited: Sep 17, 2015

Respect? You don't even respect correct English grammar and expect respect?
Respect for what? Crack Teams have NO granted "passports" nor rights on respect.
Once files are out in the open Ocean, forget noble ideas...there's no way to control.
That's the real wild side of the Internet - if you like it or not, you can't change it.

 

Good rule to follow when replying to anything that upset you - Do not reply immediately.
Take a deep breath, have a warm cup of tea, go jogging, but for the love of humanity and yourself, avoid direct reply, you're likely to cause much more damage.
Sorry for OT, but this thread has gone rather far.
Just my opinion of course..
Feel free to ignore.

 

Well, what are they actually? I mean since they chose to go private they are no longer p2p, right?

 

I’m following with interest this "R2R stolen bytes” noisy altercation.
Actually I’m not involved in any way the warez scene, but the topic started to unleash a lot of questions in my mind:

• are hacks codes creative products?
• Does hacks needs a copyright protection?
• Who is in charge to persecute Hack copyright infringement?
• Can we consider a hack code part of human heritage?
• What should it be the real meaning of copyright in the internet era?
• Is the "Creative Commons” concept a valid alternative to classic copyright rules?
  

Sure, we can discuss about hacks property, but i guess is limitative: much better to lead discussion about every aspect of creative product, Arts and human skills in general

Who owns the culture?


As an artist, I’m very interested in the discussion. Whenever I create anything, I’m obsessively asking myself a question: how much of me reside inside my product? How much of other human being ideas influence my work? How much of my cultural background is really mine?

Still looking for an answer

 

We are not pure but derivative of every and all that we encounter, transforming as we digest what is absorbed from our enviornment, recreating, albeit in other forms from that which already exist until once again we encounter ourselves in the mirror of our creation to admire the purity and singularity oneness of our art. We ARE the snake devouring our own tails (tales), recycling the already recycled and recycle again.

Who owns the culture?


As an artist, I’m very interested in the discussion. Whenever I create anything, I’m obsessively asking myself a question: how much of me reside inside my product? How much of other human being ideas influence my work? How much of my cultural background is really mine?

Still looking for an answer[/QUOTE]

 

Where do you see a crime, let alone organized crime?
Everything would remain the same as it was before May. Teams share, we download and criminal activity is nether less nor more. You download anyway only the quality of the downloaded stuff increase, team crack apps anyway, they would just release a bit more often as they used to and they don't make money by doing that.
What crime is in donating community for legit copy of Community made Audio CD or community Kontakt library download?
What happens after that donators would never know nor would they be able to influence it in any way, no crime in that.
What crime is in receiving donation for legit Audio CD or contact library that they provided for us members?
What they chose to do with donations is up to them. Only we'd hope that they would use it to give back to teams in a way that teams want so that they have something to share. But this is just a hope, not a crime.
If they purchase a copy of software and give away to their friends to register, it is actually a very nice gift, not a crime.

For contributors here this would be in a way very similar to donations to your favorite charity, you can only hope that they will use it in a way that you like (as advertised).

 

Thanks for the good post! But there's a difference between hacks and cracks.
1. Cracking of codes can be creative, depends on the skills + time of the cracker.
2. NO, cracks don't need copyright protections. For what? Anybody can dive into any software and modify it...
...as long as you don't sell or re-sell, or share it on public sites no problems.
3. No one is in charge of crack copyright infringement, for the cracked part.
Not the same for the entire product, of course!
4. I don't consider cracks as part of human heritage intended as "ownership" of some Teams.
5. The real meaning of copyright should be "honesty".
6. Yes. It's a valid alternative. More should be created.
*******************************************************************************************************************************

 

This bloody Ilok II isn't going to get the better of me!

 

This doesn't necessary conflict with what Kook said.
It might be considered art (I would consider it an artistic achievement), but there's no reason for 'ownership' of such artistry.
Quoting with giving credit should be still allowed.

Just a situation from real life - the more you want to protect something, the more likely it's going to get damaged/abused/stolen. I learned that the hard way

I feel for all human and spiritual being who has to get on with iLok or that dreaded 2nd "upgrade".
Simple "do not use SW that requires iLok" doesn't usually cut it - as ProTools depends on it and most of industry depends on ProTools.
Massive eruption in type of 100.000 people signing petition - that should do some damage, including but not limited to class action lawsuit, if not on US ground, then on EU.

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2015

There was recently a music teacher on Steinberg net saying that none of the kids who went through his class knew how to use Cubase.

That's what strong protection gets you. Today's market but not tomorrow's.

 

I don't know if the term ART fits well to computer science.
It can be seen as a form of abstract thinking, but then it's in the same pure mathematics.
Therefore I'd consider the act of reversing as a creative process,
but the final product not necessary Art.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Art is about process in it's purest form and is best described as a "verb", but which later can transform into the "noun" art. However, when one uses it as a noun the concept fragments into 6 billion different ideas each leading in tangent from the pure circle of the act doing/performing of art. "Your art sucks, her art is great, that elephant sure has talent with a paint brush!" are foolproof ways to degrade the essence of creation and put us on the rocky road of categorization where once was only beauty in the moment. My thinking that someone's work is gorgeous does not make it so just as a strong dislike does not make it bad. My experience with G.G. Allin throwing shit at us in the audience was artful but the result was not, or was it?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2015

I bet they could use hypersonic2 in their sleep :P