Piracy will live on you don't stop pirates EVER!!!
No matter how hard you try because theres something called offshore hosting WOOT WOOT
No matter how hard you try because theres something called offshore hosting WOOT WOOT
*cough* That one unstoppable website *cough*ThatDudeWithTheFood said:Piracy will live on you don't stop pirates EVER!!!
No matter how hard you try because theres something called offshore hosting WOOT WOOT
Fear Zoa said:*cough* That one unstoppable website *cough*ThatDudeWithTheFood said:Piracy will live on you don't stop pirates EVER!!!
No matter how hard you try because theres something called offshore hosting WOOT WOOT
In other words, the United States owns the internet.I K K E said:Saddamsdevil said:Nice one, but, doesn't this mean pirates win anyway if the site is hosted offshore?
I don't think so.
QUOTE(sanity @ Sep 24 2010, 08:02 AM) The bill would allow the Attorney General to pursue restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and injunctions against websites that have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" copyright-infringing activities. The bill would also allow these actions to be pursued against such websites in rem — meaning that the website itself can be treated as the defendant rather than its owner. This would also allow the government to pursue sites whose owners may not be within the United States' jurisdiction, if the site knowingly provides infringing content within the United States.
The United States can't own the internet, technically, it's owned by everyone who owns a domain. Doing this would practically be stealing. Good thing im in Canada, Stephen Harper doesn't give a crap about pirating video games, the Anti piracy bill thing in Canada will be dead very soon. SH would probably be too lazy to sign it and go for coffee insteadkirby145 said:In other words, the United States owns the internet.I K K E said:Saddamsdevil said:Nice one, but, doesn't this mean pirates win anyway if the site is hosted offshore?
I don't think so.
QUOTE(sanity @ Sep 24 2010, 08:02 AM) The bill would allow the Attorney General to pursue restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and injunctions against websites that have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" copyright-infringing activities. The bill would also allow these actions to be pursued against such websites in rem — meaning that the website itself can be treated as the defendant rather than its owner. This would also allow the government to pursue sites whose owners may not be within the United States' jurisdiction, if the site knowingly provides infringing content within the United States.
You all know its true
Yes as was www.pokebeach.com and www.serebii.net but Nintendo still sent them some Cease and desist letters with threats to sue them. The Video Game Corporate entity is getting too large and trying to control too much in my opinion.Sonicslasher said:This site does not provide infringing content. It's a purely informational website.I K K E said:Saddamsdevil said:Nice one, but, doesn't this mean pirates win anyway if the site is hosted offshore?
I don't think so.
QUOTE(sanity @ Sep 24 2010, 08:02 AM) The bill would allow the Attorney General to pursue restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and injunctions against websites that have "no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" copyright-infringing activities. The bill would also allow these actions to be pursued against such websites in rem — meaning that the website itself can be treated as the defendant rather than its owner. This would also allow the government to pursue sites whose owners may not be within the United States' jurisdiction, if the site knowingly provides infringing content within the United States.