You can watch the movie 21 on line for free

MJ1 · May 29, 2008

Here is the Disclaimer posted on the Watch-Movies.net:

"Disclaimer:

Watch-Movies.net is absolutly legal and contain only links to other sites on the Internet : ( rapidshare.com, megaupload.com, megashare(s), mega, dailymotion.com, myspace.com, ouou.com, stage6.com, tudou.com, veoh.com, youku.com, youtube.com and others.. ) We do not host or upload any video, films, media files ( avi, mov, flv, mpg, mpeg, divx, dvd rip, mp3, mp4, torrent, ipod, psp ), watch-movies.net is not responsible for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the content of other linked sites. If you have any legal issues please contact appropriate media file owners / hosters".

QFIT · May 29, 2008

MJ1 said:

Yes, the disclaimer in effect admits that sharing files is indeed illegal. They are just falsely declaring that they're not culpable. The PirateBay site has disclaimers all over warning people that it is illegal to download or upload copyrighted files. Of course, 99.9% of the files they point to are copyrighted and the raison d'etre of the site is illegal downloading. They put these notices up when they were arrested. Disclaimers like this have little effect in law. Putting a sign up at a coat check room stating "Not responsible for checked items" doesn't make it so. They are responsible.

21forme · May 29, 2008

Ebay's party line "we are just a venue" has worked, so far. Anyone know the status of the Tiffany lawsuit against them?

QFIT · May 29, 2008

21forme said:

eBay is evolving their position. When I made complaints to them in their early days they completely ignored me. No response at all. They now have a program called Verified Rights Owner (VeRO). Once you are registered as a VeRO, you can point out copyright violations and they remove the auctions. I had one removed a couple weeks ago. Some of these companies tried to claim that they were not responsible for what happened on their sites. But, the law has been pretty clear on this since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1998.

Oh, the Tiffany suit is in its last stages. I believe eBay has already begun a new program where auctions of articles which are commonly counterfeited (like Tiffany's) are delayed to give the manufacturer time to complain.

zengrifter · May 29, 2008

QFIT said:

ZG this really is no joke to me. These bastards have caused me incredible problems. I have spent huge amounts of time and money fighting these criminals. I have had to block off entire countries from access to my sites. Some have even inserted viruses into copies of my software before spreading it seriously damaging my reputation. A significant percentage of these downloads contain trojans that convert your PC into SPAM machines or force constant advertising popups. I have to spend hours trying to disinfect machines. If you did in fact just put the free copies of my software that I gave you across the file-sharing universe, then you may have ended future updates.

No, I didn't know that a small software company would have that degree of problem.
Of course I didn't share the file. Bad joke!! zg

QFIT · May 29, 2008

zengrifter said:

Sorry if I got hot, didn't think you did. There is a group of very small software publishers named ASP -- Association of Shareware Professionals. Fifteen years back their definition of Shareware said that it could not be crippled in any way. All shareware had to be fully functional and payment entirely voluntary. Then one of the computer mags tried an experiment. They included a disk with two nearly identical shareware programs. One crippled and the other fully function. Almost no one paid for the fully functional program. Oddly, this is the opposite of what they expected. ASP quickly revised its definition of Shareware to allow crippled demos. Unfortunately, people are not very honest when no one is watching.

mdlbj · May 30, 2008

We ( my company ) are porting a Uber windows app to Linux/OSX. Which falls under the GPL agreement. So frick all the rhetorical BS. ITs so possible to strip the lic agreements out of an app and make it usable by everyone.

No worries, we will do the work.

GentleManSteve · May 30, 2008

QFIT said:

Yes if the Movies was on their severs then they should indeed be responsible but most sites put them on different servers and not only are they conspiring to causing somebody else to commit a crime but also aiding and abetting and leading other to do a crime and that is why they was brought up in charges. Not because they linked but they gave soembody else they way to commit a crime so in away they was conspiring on a crime. Not that they did the crime but they set up away for other to commit a crime. That is why they was charged with conspiracy to commit a crime and not charged with infringement.

• Infringement: Infringement occurs when someone copies, distributes, publicly performs or displays copyrighted work without the permission of the artist or author of the work (“Terminology”).

k_c · May 30, 2008

mdlbj said:

Why would anyone bother to develop software when the people it is intended to help just want to steal it? I guess it's the AP move to obtain software illegally for free without any consequences. I'm sure it's possible. Just because someone is an AP doesn't mean he's not a skum bag though. I'm sure there are lots of people that pirate software, get away with it, and don't have a second thought about it. Silent Bob was banned from this site for announcing he had pirated software. At least he had the guts to admit it. In his own twisted logic he thought it was acceptable and I think some others silently agreed with him to just throw ethics out the window as an AP move.

QFIT · May 30, 2008

k_c said:

Why would anyone bother to develop software when the people it is intended to help just want to steal it? I guess it's the AP move to obtain software illegally for free without any consequences. I'm sure it's possible. Just because someone is an AP doesn't mean he's not a skum bag though. I'm sure there are lots of people that pirate software, get away with it, and don't have a second thought about it. Silent Bob was banned from this site for announcing he had pirated software. At least he had the guts to admit it. In his own twisted logic he thought it was acceptable and I think some others silently agreed with him to just throw ethics out the window as an AP move.

Silent Bob wasn't too clever about it. It took me ten minutes to locate and call his parents. In any case he lost his bankroll and swore off gambling.

GentleManSteve · May 30, 2008

k_c said:

Some people are asking to be hacked. They put their software out there as Freeware and when the person downloads it he gets Shareware. I would not think twice about hacking such a persons software. If they put it as freeware and it is actually shareware then what they are doing is just wrong. They are just labeling it as freeware to get people to download it so it can get to more people.

I think this is wrong in its self and I do not find anything wrong with hacking such sofware. They want to mislead people about its software so in my opinion the deserve to be hacked.

That is my 2 cents

A.Conti · Jun 2, 2008

Thankyou for this information Steve, although this website has many faults and the picture quality is terrible.

Harman · Jun 2, 2008

A.Conti said:

Haha, the typical Italian :grin: :joker:

A.Conti · Jun 2, 2008

lol the typical Italian has a mustache and makes pizza for a living :grin: :laugh:

GentleManSteve · Jun 3, 2008

A.Conti said:

Yes it is kind of poor quality.

A.Conti · Jun 4, 2008

Oh well it'll do

k_c · Jun 5, 2008

GentleManSteve said:

I have 2 programs. There is an organiztion called Association of Shareware Professionals. A software developer can submit a file called a Portable Application Document (PAD) with them so that any site that offers software downloads has access to it. The idea is that any information about your program can be updated in one place. This seemed to be possibly reasonable so I submitted the file for my Composition Dependent Combinatorial Analyzer Program as an experiment. Several software download sites that I know of and probably some that I don't know of list the program for download. The ones that I know of list it as shareware (free to try but requiring purchase after a trial period expires.) They list the software for their own purposes. Some of them make links in the program description that link to topics completely unrelated to the program. I don't like these. Some probably are looking for hits for more profitable advertising.

I have not submitted a PAD for my other program, Blackjack Game and Probability Computer. I'm still not sure if I like the idea or not. I guess any site that knew of the availability of a program could link to a download of it but without something such as a PAD file its existence would tend to be unknown.

The trials of both of my programs are full versions and have no features that are disabled. On my site and in the program I make it clear that in order to use the program after the trial ends requires purchase. I have no control over how it may be portrayed elsewhere. I offer the programs in good faith and would hope most would respect that. In my dealings with people I have found that most are basically honest and the ones that aren't are the exception. The internet offers the opportunity to the dishonest to be anonymously dishonest. Some computer users, particularly the younger ones, feel they are endowed with special entitlements based on flimsy excuses. Yeah, they may be able to get something for nothing but that type of attitude is not good for our country as a whole.

QFIT · Jun 6, 2008

k_c said:

I have 2 programs. There is an organiztion called Association of Shareware Professionals. A software developer can submit a file called a Portable Application Document (PAD) with them so that any site that offers software downloads has access to it. The idea is that any information about your program can be updated in one place. This seemed to be possibly reasonable so I submitted the file for my Composition Dependent Combinatorial Analyzer Program as an experiment. Several software download sites that I know of and probably some that I don't know of list the program for download. The ones that I know of list it as shareware (free to try but requiring purchase after a trial period expires.) They list the software for their own purposes. Some of them make links in the program description that link to topics completely unrelated to the program. I don't like these. Some probably are looking for hits for more profitable advertising.

I have not submitted a PAD for my other program, Blackjack Game and Probability Computer. I'm still not sure if I like the idea or not. I guess any site that knew of the availability of a program could link to a download of it but without something such as a PAD file its existence would tend to be unknown.

The trials of both of my programs are full versions and have no features that are disabled. On my site and in the program I make it clear that in order to use the program after the trial ends requires purchase. I have no control over how it may be portrayed elsewhere. I offer the programs in good faith and would hope most would respect that. In my dealings with people I have found that most are basically honest and the ones that aren't are the exception. The internet offers the opportunity to the dishonest to be anonymously dishonest. Some computer users, particularly the younger ones, feel they are endowed with special entitlements based on flimsy excuses. Yeah, they may be able to get something for nothing but that type of attitude is not good for our country as a whole.

The vast majority of people are dishonest when anonymous. Pity. You have little control over how your programs are depicted if you submit PAD files. Some sites will claim that shareware is freeware. This is in no way the fault of the author. But there will always be people that use this as an excuse to steal it. They will say things like "they deserve to be hacked." Or they will find any other excuse or "loophole" they can find. They will actually blame the victim for their theft. We have seen this clearly in this thread.

sagefr0g · Jun 10, 2008

library

i haven't been in a library for years. last time i was they had movies (vcr tapes) you could borrow and some audio tapes.
then of course there are books you can borrow.
how does what a library allows for stack up against what all has been talked about here? i never really ever understood that in light of copy rights and royalties, intellectual rights, ect.
with the accelerated advent of computers and the internet does it seem as if some balanced change is called for?

QFIT · Jun 10, 2008

sagefr0g said:

i haven't been in a library for years. last time i was they had movies (vcr tapes) you could borrow and some audio tapes.
then of course there are books you can borrow.
how does what a library allows for stack up against what all has been talked about here? i never really ever understood that in light of copy rights and royalties, intellectual rights, ect.
with the accelerated advent of computers and the internet does it seem as if some balanced change is called for?

It has always been legal to borrow copyrighted works. No such thing as "borrowrighting."

You can watch the movie 21 on line for free

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member