/tech/ - Technology★

/r/mma Redditor detected!

I bet one of their devs snuck this in to make some extra cash.

Probably was some webdev that uses npm or cargo where libraries can be pulled from total unknowns and install backdoors and botnets on the development machine.

>>816322

How do they solve that problem?

Showtime got hit with this back in September. It wasn't even their server that got hit, it was a third party web analytics service.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/25/showtime_hit_with_coinmining_script/

But that's what you deserve for not blocking analytics services, much less all third party scripts. You should know better if you're on this board.

>win10

>chrome

>antivirus

>allowing js

Is this copypasted from reddit?

Good thing I torrent UFC fights instead of paying for them. Also, script blockers are a thing.

>>816310 (OP)

>Common sense is da best anni-vurus

>>816310 (OP)

>shoo shoo, scaary! post

>watching degenerate clapper """sports""" circus for manchildren

>watching it in browser

>not using a pirate satellite box

>using Windows

>sing any kind of antivirus unironically

>not using any kind of adblocker that blocks this shit right away

>chrome

>>816346

That's theft and a violation of their license. You do care about licensing, don't you?

>>816476

>(((licensing)))

>>816476

>theft

Copying something is not theft you retard. When a theft occurs, the victim no longer has the thing that you took. The fact is that I don't care enough about UFC to pay for it. If torrents were not available for it I would simply choose not to watch.

>>816467

>adblocker

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of an adblocker performing this function. Script blockers are for blocking scripts. Adblockers are for blocking ads.

>>816476

Stealing from Jews is like giving to freedom

>>816560

I'd like to add that piracy is violence upon ships on the high seas. If you feel that it is a good thing to share works of authorship, then don't refer to it as piracy if there are no ships involved.

>>816560

You violated their licence.

>>816567

Not an argument.

>>816568

>Everything should be freeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

faggots who pay to watch sports deserve what they get

>>816644

>You violated their licence.

I don't care about licenses. I care about ethics. Violating a license is not inherrently unethical. Niether is downloading something I am unwilling to pay for.

>>816672

You're inventing freedoms you don't have. Moral principals have been encoded into the law, and your personal ethics are meaningless. If you are unwilling to pay for the product, you are not permitted to view it. To suggest otherwise is extremely Jewish.

>>816684

>MUH JOOOOS

mods

>>816684

>law == ethics

>muh sheeple logic

Fuck off retard

>>816694

>sheeple

Use of that portmanteau is a sure sign of a stupid person. I can't help but read your post in the voice of Sarah Palin.

>>816695

>victimless crimes are unethical because muh laws

>blindly agreeing with everything society tells you is intelligent

You are clearly trolling or actually mentally challenged.

>>816560

This is a good point. If I were unable to torrent the shows/movies I watch I would probably just either borrow from a friend or not watch them.

>>816689

Not a violation of board rules.

>>816684

Do you really care about piracy or are you just doing this for argument's sake?

>>816714

At this point, what difference does it make?

>>816560

>Copying something is not theft you retard

You have deprived the copyright holder of their due compensation for the service.

>>816700

>victimless

The injured party has lost revenue as part of your action. By choosing to watch their material, you have deprived them of due compensation. If you "weren't going to pay anyways", then you should not have viewed the material.

If people are going to have cavalier attitudes to the law like you two, what is the point of worrying so much about code licences and intellectual property law?

>>816672

Can a strong man force his way into your home and spend the night sleeping on your floor? He thinks it's ethical to seek the human need of shelter and abode. He wasn't going to pay for a hotel anyways, he won't take your food and will be gone in the morning.

> Bu-bu-but muh rights!

Yeah, I thought so.

>>816717

Probably none, but I was honestly curious.

as long as they don't rape peoples cpu's this could be a better option than ads.

>>816728

I was just using that tired Hillary expression. The honest truth is that I really don't like piracy, but pricing gouging is even worse. People are usually willing to pay a fair price for something, and then we see greater piracy when the cost moves closer to extortionate. In a perfect world, people wouldn't be so greedy and dishonest, for our sins, we've now got DRM.

>>816720

>The injured party has lost revenue as part of your action

No they haven't. How retarded are you? Please explain to me how me viewing it caused them to lose money.

>If you "weren't going to pay anyways", then you should not have viewed the material

That's your opinion, and I disagree.

>what is th epoint of worrying so much about code licenses and intellectual property law?

I think "intellectual property" is a retarded concept. I only care about code licenses because I want all software to be open source. I want GPL to spread like a virus. However, that is not an ethical issue. It's just something I want.

>>816727

That isn't a comparable scenario. A comparable scenario would be if he were to create a copy of my home and sleep in that. I would have no problem with that happening.

>>816743

>retarded

If I call things retarded, I win the argument.

>>816743

> Please explain to me how me viewing it caused them to lose money.

Your unauthorized viewing deprived them of revenue. This isn't a difficult concept.

>>816747

Neither is karma, that does not make it true. If you locked someone in a room with a warez film copy and lock it down to prevent information leaking from it, could you reliably tell from your revenue stream whether he watched the video or not?

>>816749

That depends on how many of the total viewers are ones in your locked room scenario.

>>816749

Nice one. Schrödingers Pirate.

>>816747

>I deprived them of something they wouldn't have received regardless

Tell me more about how they "lost" revenue.

>>816765

Because you were not an authorized viewer. You could not accomplish your act without breaking the law. By infringing copyright law you gained an unfair advantage (entertainment).

>>816774

>moving goalposts

You act like I give a shit about the law. The law is not the same thing as ethics.

>>816797

Again, your ethics are meanigless. Our laws exist to provide an agreed upon set of rules to protect commerce. As you're in favor of one-sided transactions which benefit you without compensating the other party, why not just get it over with and convert to Judaism? You're half-way there, and clearly do not belong in a high-trust white society.

>>816811

>Our laws exist to provide an agreed upon set of rules to protect commerce

Not everyone agrees upon them though. Just because the house of representatives votes for a law that does not mean that everyone (or even the majority) agrees with it. Even if the majority of people do agree on a law, that still doesn't make it an ethical issue. The only things which are inherrently unethical are causing unnecessary suffering and unnecessarily denying pleasure.

>>816821

>unnecessarily denying pleasure

I need to clarify what this means since you will no doubt go full retard on me if I do not. What I should have said is "unnecessarily deny the opportunity to seek pleasure" (ie. killing someone, restraining someone, restricting someone, etc...)

>>816821

How do you know that copyright infringement doesn't cause unnecessary suffering?

>>816836

Because it has zero effect on the copyright holders. What I do in the privacy of my own home does not affect the outside world. Are you seriously brain damaged?

>>816821

>Just because the house of representatives votes for a law that does not mean that everyone (or even the majority) agrees with it.

Well to be fair, a sizeable about of the population has no business weighing in on codifying law; a cursory trip around your city will remind you of that. You then insist upon talking about your personal ethics, which for the third time, I shall remind you are meaningless.

>>816848

As the other guy has told you, you're depriving them of revenue. You seem dense.

>>816848

Do you not understand that creating the copyrighted works is the suffering? They create the works in order to eat for a living and they don't get paid until after it's finished. But you feel entitled to take the finished work on your own terms without compensating them on their terms.

>all these posts

Welcome to Cucked Courtroom Simulator 2017.

>>816853

>you are depriving them of revenue

No I am not. They have the same amount of revenue as if I chose not to watch the show at all. Their revenue has not changed as the result of me torrenting their show.

>Do you not understand that creating the copyrighted works is the suffering?

First of all you are assuming that they do not derive pleasure out of their work. Second of all, I am not forcing them to do that. That is their choice.

>But you feel entitled to take the finished work on your own terms without compensating them on their terms.

Irrelevant to the conversation. The revenue they earn is the same whether I torrent the show or choose not to watch it. The alternative scenario is that I simply would not watch the show.

>>816860

>Their revenue has not changed

We've been over this. The revenue has not changed because of a one-sided transaction. You took advantage of the service and did not compensate them for it. Instead of owning up to being a dirty pirate you keep trying to justify yourself like a slippery kike with some personal set of ethics no one else cares about.

You did this because there is a low likelihood of being caught. I think you should try it at a movie theatre though. Tell them to let you sit on the stairs for free, because you weren't going to pay anyways.

>>816736

>Windows 10

>Edge

You deserve a bitcoin miner

>>816862

>The revenue has not changed

Exactly, which means there is no victim. The end result is exactly the same as if I had not watched it. Now stop being a dumbass.

>>816736

rofl coinhivejs can't even use 100% of the cpu, best it can do is 80.6, because windows 10 is using the other 19.4% in botnet tracking and overhead.

>>816874

Yes we know, you're a freeloader. Now stop talking and go search for crumbs on the floor peasant.

>>816886

>in botnet tracking and overhead.

Probably mining some coins while they're at it.

>>816893

>ad hominem attack

Yeah, that's what I would expect from someone who's argument lacks substance

>But.. torrenting is theft!

No it isn't

>Okay, maybe it's not theft, but it's against the law

The law doesn't define ethics

>Okay, maybe it doesn't, but it's still unethical anyways because reasons I can't explain

No it's not. In fact, it has literally no impact/victim.

>Well that may be so, but you are a pirate/kike/freeloader

So where are the goalposts now?

>>816914

who is this?

>>816310 (OP)

lel

Is that an official or pirate stream site? If the latter, you deserve it you faggot.

>>816467

>hurr durr

>>>/reddit/

>>816729

>t. Josh

>>816953

I hadn't heard about her music career. I only listen to jazz-punk fusion made with a synthesized orchestra and played from a cassette that was recorded during a live recording.

>>816895

you joke now but i fully believe this will happen, i capped your post

>>816645

It already IS free, you stupid mental cumdupster for pozzed billionaires that hate you. You can just grab it, read, watch it, listen, play it for free. Still some faggots prefer to pay for it because they feel comfortable having a class of people exploiting them because weak people, much like babies, like to know there are people stronger than them around so they won't have to face the world by themselves.The slaves shall serve, and o they do!

>>816811

>Our laws exist to provide an agreed upon set of rules to protect commerce

>agreed upon

Yeah, by whom? Answer that question and see your entire point disappear. Like tears in fucking rain, my man.

>>817148

Anything is free if you steal it.

>>817150

By the producers in society, not street urchins like you.

>>817148

>It already IS free

No you imbecile it is not. The choice to make software free of charge is in the hands of the owners. You have merely copied the product and withheld payment in violation of the law.

>>816797

>You act like I give a shit about the law.

And yet it would be your first recourse if someone stronger than you decided to beat the shit out of you.

>>817175

>The choice to make software free of charge is in the hands of the owners.

No, their only choice is to theorize people should pay for their shit, and then whine like little bitches begging people to respect their personal wishes. They, and you, are like that retarded kid who claimed the playground belonged to him and others couldn't play here, and then started crying for his momma when no one respected it and played there anyway.

Technology made your exploitation dreams irrelevant, and no amount of paying cops to do your bidding and fuck people's lives out of pure greed can change that. Copyright is a relique from the past that's only kept living-dead by bullying power and small mentality.

>>817229

This is your brain on ANTIFA. What a loser.

>>817229

>their only choice is to theorize

Laws are enforced, tell someone in jail they are a theory.

>kid who claimed the playground belonged to him

Worthless analogy. We're not talking about imaginary claims.

>exploitation

Selling services is exploitation? I cannot even comprehend being this deluded.

>paying cops to do your bidding and fuck people's lives

No cops? What are you advocating for here fool, rule by the mighty?

> pure greed

Earning a living is greed? Ok, I'll remind you that you need to be 18 to post here. The rest of your drivel isn't worth responding to.

Have a nice day.

>>817176

The whole point of my post was that ethics trumps law. Regardless of law, the scenario you described would be unethical. Are you seriously retarded?

>>817767

Please just let this thread die. You've been BTFO so many times it is boring to read frankly.

>>817783

>My argument was shown to be bad again

Cry harder faggot.

>>817789

You have no argument, all you do is scream "you're a retard" and try shifting the debate to your personal ethics which have no relevance in the real world.

>>817791

>personal ethics

Ethics is objective amongst anyone with empathy, which is the majority of the population. People without empathy are not capable of being moral agents. Empathy is intrinsically linked to the behavioral motivators known as pleasure and suffering. You can pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will have to admit to lacking empathy in the process.

The fact is (and I've already told you this) that nobody was denied the opportunity to seek pleasure or caused to suffer as the result of me torrenting UFC.

>>817169

>steal

When you steal something, the victim no longer has the thing you stole. Copying is not the same thing as stealing.

>>817794

Your unauthorized copying harmed the creators in the fact that they worked hard and now they don't get compensated for the work. The moral way to deal with this is to pay them their price or you need to do without. You have no empathy because you believe that it is moral for you to take that unauthorized copy without paying for it.

>>817794

>Ethics is objective amongst anyone with empathy

Your assertion of objectivity is amusingly subjective. The moral code which society has agreed upon is called the law. You cannot unilaterally give yourself the right that a person must provide you a service for free. Even if you feel it is personally ethical, that is immaterial; Robin Hood was still a thief.

You have caused monetary harm to the UFC by denying payment. You extracted a benefit at their expense, a theft of service that you were not entitled to.

We're going in circles though, so instead of repeating myself any longer I will not prolong this discussion.

>>817799

>now they don't get compensated for the work

Irrelevant. If I didn't torrent the show they would still not be compensated. The end result is exactly the same

>>817801

>The moral code which society has agreed upon is called the law.

The law is not a moral code. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you that you would think that. It tries to overlap with ethics, but it is not inherrently about ethics and is not always in the right. Slavery used to be legal for fucks sake. Just because it was legal that does not mean it was ethical. It's not like it was ethical until they changed the law and then it stopped being ethical.

>>817805

>Irrelevant. If I didn't torrent the show they would still not be compensated. The end result is exactly the same

As I said, you have no empathy. You need to do without if you don't intend on paying.

>>817807

>You need to do without if you don't intend on paying.

Why? There is no ethical basis for this.

>>817808

The ethical basis is the fact that they worked hard for the purpose of earning a living. They earn their living by doing the work and putting it out to the public. If you want to see that work, the moral way is to pay that price they ask. If you don't want to pay the price, the moral way is to do without it. To take that work without paying the price they ask is not ethical.

>>817810

That's not how ethics works. Explain to me how me torrenting caused them to suffer or denied them the opportunity to seek pleasure. If I didn't watch/torrent their show, they would be in the same exact position with the same exact amount of profit. What I did in my home had literally zero impact on them.

>>816774

> Because you were not an authorized viewer. You could not accomplish your act without breaking the law. By infringing copyright law you gained an unfair advantage (entertainment).

When will /tech/ ever be purged of degenerate redditors? It's always been bad but it's insufferable to come here anymore. Any other places to visit?

>>817815

>Any other places to visit?

/g/?

reddit?

>>817815

>it's insufferable to come here anymore. Any other places to visit?

Thanks for volunteering to leave. You're helping to improve the board in doing so, every bit helps!

>>817837

That's nice that you find his response to be a convenient way to get out of your losing position in the argument, but I'm still waiting for a response to >>817813

>>817805

>does not mean it was ethical

Says who? Relative to commonly accepted ethical practices today for sure, but a person from that time would have a very different set of ethics. They would likely go so far as to argue what makes for an 'ethical treatment of a slave'. Ethics are not some unmovable set in stone universal code, they vary amongst individuals and throughout time.

>>817871

Not him, but I suppose he got tired of your inane response of appeals to your special snowflake ethics, which permit you to see no moral quandary in failing to compensate others for their services. It's a simple economic argument: producing the service, incurs a cost to the third party, which they risk for the prospect of profit. Obviously you understand that if no one paid, they would go out of business, and the more people pay, the more longer they stick around. What then is so special about you, that you feel others should pay, and you should not? Are you perhaps an impecunious man who plans to pay when you're older and more successful? Or do you really believe you should be entitled to free things just because you can get away with taking them? If it's the former, at least I could understand that you knew the error of your ways and planned to right the wrong. Still, the moral thing to go without if you cannot afford it, as the other guy told you.

Tangentially related to this topic, but from the other side of combatting piracy, I would like to see expensive software suites like Adobe Photoshop tackle the issue by make their software freely available to say those under 18.

>>818000

The definition of ethics don't change over time. see >>817794

>>817805