Supernova.org

[aStabell]

One of my buddies told me about this and I checked it out. I was wondering if it was completely legit or if it was just a big scam?

the websight: http://www.filesharingcenter.com/index.php

PS I didn't know where to post this so I put it here.

[Whigga Spitta]

I think it's just a big scam, don't use it.

[musicpyrite]

Are you sure he mean supernova.org or did he mean suprnova.org (http://suprnova.org)?

[Chip NoVaMac]

It seems too good to be true, so it probably is a pass.

[grabberslasher]

It's real, but nearly everything on it is illegal.

[smllpx]

bewarned, suprnova.org is known to be monitored by the RIAA and MPAA. I have also heard the FBI has been known to keep an eye on it, but I'm not sure if that is tinfoil hat talk.

[Elmy]

I wouldn't trust a site with a girl that ugly in the right hand column :D

As for suprnova.org, I seriously doubt its being monitored MUCH by the RIAA/MPAA types. For starters, most people are only sharing between 1 and 2 files at a time, making suing them a bad option, when you could sue some Kazaa-head with 2000 songs on their disks for a LOT more money.

Secondly, BitTorrent is generally the preserve of the hardcore geek type, and has a TINY proportion of the file sharing capacity in terms of users (not sure about bandwidth, I bet they get through a fair bit hehe). The RIAA basically want to scare as many people as possible away from filesharing, so its best of going for the most populous file sharing networks.

Luckily I live in Europe, so quite far away from these evil corporate types :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

I wouldn't trust a site with a girl that ugly in the right hand column :D

As for suprnova.org, I seriously doubt its being monitored MUCH by the RIAA/MPAA types. For starters, most people are only sharing between 1 and 2 files at a time, making suing them a bad option, when you could sue some Kazaa-head with 2000 songs on their disks for a LOT more money.

Secondly, BitTorrent is generally the preserve of the hardcore geek type, and has a TINY proportion of the file sharing capacity in terms of users (not sure about bandwidth, I bet they get through a fair bit hehe). The RIAA basically want to scare as many people as possible away from filesharing, so its best of going for the most populous file sharing networks.

Luckily I live in Europe, so quite far away from these evil corporate types :)

I don't put it past the RIAA to go after the lesser folks to just put a scare in others.

[JzzTrump22]

Suprnova is real. I use it all the time. 95% of the files are real. It's better because instead of downloading 1 song at a time, it downloads entire albums or several albums at once. Everything is better quality from them too. But kazaa is still better because you could download hundreds of songs at once, with suprnova you could only do 1 file at a time.

[garybUK]

Suprnova is real. I use it all the time. 95% of the files are real. It's better because instead of downloading 1 song at a time, it downloads entire albums or several albums at once. Everything is better quality from them too. But kazaa is still better because you could download hundreds of songs at once, with suprnova you could only do 1 file at a time.

Actually on bit-torrent you can have several downloads going at once you need to use a decent client, personally i use Azerus (spellings) it has a blue frog as the icon.

The trouble with Bit-Torrent is that as long as people seed it (make it available for upload) or are currently downloading that torrent then the upload rates are good. If they choose not to seed it, or if no one else is downloading that torrent, it wont download at all.

[Enigma]

Luckily I live in Europe, so quite far away from these evil corporate types :)

As do I, but didn't stop me getting caught.

I (stupidly) downloaded Norton Firewall from Suprnova. Not for me ironically enough, I've got a hardware router/firewall at home, my brother phoned me in a panic, weird popups were appearing on his computer, he'd just got ADSL and wanted a firewall. I was in my office at University (I'm a PhD student), took all of 10 minutes to download Norton Firewall off Suprnova, got a crack for it of an IRC DCC server, threw it on a CD and dropped it off to him on the way home.

A few weeks later the IT folk (and my supervisor) came through to confiscate my machine for investigation because the University had been contacted by Symantec who claimed I was illegally distributing pirated versions of their software. The thing is, to all intents and purposes I had, since Bit Torrent uploads while it downloads, so in escence I had been distributing it. I put my hands up and admitted it, stupid mistake, but explained how it worked and that I wasn't running a warez server.

If i had done it at home I'd have been fine, but the fact I was at a University (with an .ac.uk address), made it easily traceable, and the University is responsible for everything that happens on their network, so it's an easy place to target.

In the end, it was dealt with internally by our department, they accepted I had no malicious intent, it was a stupid mistake and no actions other than a verbal warning were taken, and I was told that if anything like this ever happens again, it will be dealt with at a University level, and I'll probably be kicked out.

Bit of a wake up call I tell you, so from now on, no downloading anything non-legit from a University computer.

So don't assume that because you're outside of the US you're safe.

[javabear90]

at suprnova.org I love their mac section.... I mean... o S*** !!! (knock knock.... .*Smash* Boom Boom.... Gunshot** Scream ) ... :rolleyes: ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

at suprnova.org I love their mac section.... I mean... o S*** !!! (knock knock.... .*Smash* Boom Boom.... Gunshot** Scream ) ... :rolleyes: ;)

Well, lets hope they give him access to an attorney. :D

[blackpeter]

I love Suprnova.org. High quality downloads, be they DiVx or MP3's (usually encoded in no less than 192). Full albums and a great community of users.

Don't let the powers that be intimidate you with fear. Agreed that it probably isn't a good idea to Torrent at work. Afterall, it's not your network and I'm not a fan of imposing your politics on your employer. But at home, Bit Torrent can be a great tool.

[musicpyrite]

I love Suprnova.org. High quality downloads, be they DiVx or MP3's (usually encoded in no less than 192). Full albums and a great community of users.

Yes, I'm a big fan of suprnova.org. I usually don't use suprnova for sharing copyrighted material, but rather I use it to downlad TV shows, like the Chappelle Show, 60 Minutes, and such. I hate being boxed in buy my cable company and having to watch stuff on their schedule, and that's why I don't hardly ever watch anything other than Fox. And I'm to cheap to afford TiVo.

[smllpx]

Elmy, let me assure you that I have heard of several accounts of people, I personally know, who have gotten nasty-grams from their ISP because the MPAA, RIAA, or a software company has complained. People who were even running Azureus with SafePeer have even gotten letters. I am not saying for sure you will get picked, but you are running the risk. Suprnova is well known to the MPAA and the RIAA and they have been taking action. But if you don't believe me, go ahead download like mad... right Enigma?

[IndyGopher]

Yes, I'm a big fan of suprnova.org. I usually don't use suprnova for sharing copyrighted material, but rather I use it to downlad TV shows, like the Chappelle Show, 60 Minutes, and such. I hate being boxed in buy my cable company and having to watch stuff on their schedule, and that's why I don't hardly ever watch anything other than Fox. And I'm to cheap to afford TiVo.

Just to clarify, those TV shows you mentioned are, of course, copyrighted. I am not sure if actually downloading them is illegal, but offering them for download (uploading) definitely is.. and with BitTorrent there is no downloading without uploading. (Not that it stops me... but at least I don't claim it's not illegal)

[musicpyrite]

Just to clarify, those TV shows you mentioned are, of course, copyrighted. I am not sure if actually downloading them is illegal, but offering them for download (uploading) definitely is.. and with BitTorrent there is no downloading without uploading. (Not that it stops me... but at least I don't claim it's not illegal)

Yea, well I guess you could say that. For me, being a student, I don't always have time to sit down right at 7:30 just to watch something; I might have a test or other homework that I need to do. So downloading it gives me the convenience to watch the show when ever I want. I'm not burning the show to a CD and giving that CD to a ton of people, I watch the show and then delete it. I could argue that this is the same thing as recording recording the show on TiVo and then trasnfering it to my computer. And for the record, I'm only downloading on BitTorrent; in BitTorrent there is a way to completley stop uploads. So I guess you could technically not sharing the file. And guess what? I just finished downloding Slackware 10, time to install! And anyone who wants to downlad Slackware 10, do it now!!! I got an average downlad speed of 165 KiB!

Anyways, I'm going on a tangent, back to the original subject. :)

[kanker]

I honestly hope that all of you who are file sharing copyrighted files get what you deserve meaning jail time and massive fines. There are a whole bunch of people who frequent these kinds of boards whose living is made thanks to the strength of copyright law, and proudly admitting your theft is probably not the smartest idea in the world. :mad:

[zami]

Never wish jail on someone. We can all end up inside one day for any number of reasons. Stanford experiment ring a bell?

[IndyGopher]

I honestly hope that all of you who are file sharing copyrighted files get what you deserve meaning jail time and massive fines. There are a whole bunch of people who frequent these kinds of boards whose living is made thanks to the strength of copyright law, and proudly admitting your theft is probably not the smartest idea in the world. :mad:
Thanks for thinking that through... the only thing that downloading television shows from BitTorrent deprives anyone of is the Nielsen ratings (and if you had a nielsen box, you wouldn't be downloading the shows) and the potential, imaginary revenue derived from the commercials that are cut out. Now, since you can't live in a Western society without being deluged with commercials anyway, that means you are only deprived of the commercials (oh sorry, the "impressions") that are shown/aired/exposed ONLY during the episodes I happen to download (Kingdom Hospital, and in the past, Tru Calling), since I will be exposed to them in a hundred other mediums. And since I also buy the DVDs of series I like when they are released, the studios still get their money.

This boils down to you suggesting that I be sent to jail for the heinous crime of not watching commercials.

[applekid]

The karma levels are dropping...

To any moderator, throw this into the Wasteland already.

[musicpyrite]

I honestly hope that all of you who are file sharing copyrighted files get what you deserve meaning jail time and massive fines. There are a whole bunch of people who frequent these kinds of boards whose living is made thanks to the strength of copyright law, and proudly admitting your theft is probably not the smartest idea in the world. :mad:


Alright, I'll start the argument. I could go out and buy a TiVo or an adapter to plug into my computer that would easily let me record TV shows on my Mac. Is it legal to watch TV on my Mac? Yes, it is legal. Is it legal to save a perticular TV show on my hard drive? Yes, it is.

So can you tell me what the difference is between downloading it off the internet and recording a TV show to a tape that could be played on my VCR? (or DVD player, TiVo, ect.)

And I hardly doubt I'm going to get Larry King fired from his job for downloading his interview with Clinton. I simply want to watch the news on my own schedule.

Honestly, if it makes you sleep better, instead of downloading it, I'll set the VCR.

I think people are starting to think that if they see 'download' and 'music/movies/TV shows' in the same sentance, they immeaditly think it has something to do with breaking the law.

And I never said that I was 'proudly admitting to theft.'

Any replies or retorts are welcome. :)

[applekid]

Alright, I'll start the argument. I could go out and buy a TiVo or an adapter to plug into my computer that would easily let me record TV shows on my Mac. Is it legal to watch TV on my Mac? Yes, it is legal. Is it legal to save a perticular TV show on my hard drive? Yes, it is.

So can you tell me what the difference is between downloading it off the internet and recording a TV show to a tape that could be played on my VCR? (or DVD player, TiVo, ect.)

And I hardly doubt I'm going to get Larry King fired from his job for downloading his interview with Clinton. I simply want to watch the news on my own schedule.

Honestly, if it makes you sleep better, instead of downloading it, I'll set the VCR.

I think people are starting to think that if they see 'download' and 'music/movies/TV shows' in the same sentance, they immeaditly think it has something to do with breaking the law.

And I never said that I was 'proudly admitting to theft.'

Any replies or retorts are welcome. :)

There is one of those laws that does entitle you to record TV shows and other media for your own personal use. So, yes, you don't have to fight anybody or anything off.

However, the distributor is the one that is questionable. So with that in mind, move forward with our discussion.

[Thirteenva]

So can you tell me what the difference is between downloading it off the internet and recording a TV show to a tape that could be played on my VCR? (or DVD player, TiVo, ect.)
The difference is that since someone is ILLEGALLY distributing it, you are illegally acquiring it. Thus breaking the law.

Furthermore on a bittorrent client you are uploading while downloading further implicating you.

That being said, I also download using bit torrent, I just have no delusions or false justifications about what i'm doing. So i'm not telling you not to do it, just not to try and come off like you're doing nothing wrong. Some people are incredibly sensitive on this topic and we don't want a flame war.



I think people are starting to think that if they see 'download' and 'music/movies/TV shows' in the same sentance, they immeaditly think it has something to do with breaking the law.


Most of the time they are, unless the copyright holder releases or licenses it for distribution and/or is the one distributing it then it's probably ILLEGAL.

[furrina]

Most artists want people to share files. It makes more people aware of their music and gets them to come to their shows and yes, buy their records.

A nice portion of what's on BitTorrent is high-quality bootleg recordings of live shows, past and present, which of course couldn't be purchased as an alternative because they're, um, over. So nobody "loses."
Except the neighbor whose bandwidth you're biting to download them :eek:

edit: Just to add, yes, distributing copyrighted music, etc. is illegal. If you do not want to break the law, don't participate in it. And I do believe copyright laws, etc. are very important and signify an important part of our overly capitalistic system, necessary to protect ideas, creative endeavors, etc. I just think in the near term the "music industry" is really behind the times, not to mention greedy (artists don't see most of the $ spent on CDs unless they sell huge amounts, fullfil mulitple-album contracts, etc.).

I'm not going to talk about software pirating, too complicated and over my head, except to say that as in music, the developers at big (M$, yes, Apple) companies don't see much the $ from software sold, they're lucky if they get good salaries and benefits. Also that a lot of good stuff is given away free and those guys barely make a dime (open source, freeware, etc.).

[javabear90]

all of this copy right junk is annoying, i mean if it's a big thing I can understand, but a tv show. Who the ******* cares if you watch the simpsons on your computer. Heck I would think the maker people would like it. However the commercial people would not. Now what would be cool if the TV show people could distribute thier shows online to download and say that you can't modify them, and for personal us only, and you have to watch the commericals.... etc...

/rant

i-i-is it over?? (From agent smith in matrix revolutions)

[MikeLaRiviere]

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Just because an act is illegal does not necessitate that it is immoral. Let us recall Rosa Parks and her situation. Having made this statement, I am sure many will argue that file sharing is immoral, which brings me to my second point: file sharing is legal in Canada (here is a link (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html) to the story). This statement I make to point out that the morality of file sharing is subjective.

Regarding file sharing, I will use an anecdote to illustrate the position of the proponents. Your friend buys a book, reads it, decides it was a good read, and gives you the book. You then read the book. According to US copyright laws as applicable to file sharing, you and your friend have just committed illegal acts. Your friend has distributed a copyrighted work, and you have violated copyright laws by not acquiring a license for this work. Of course, you did not commit a wrong; people commit this act by the millions at state-sanctioned libraries.

Therefore, I have shown that the argument of the proponents of file sharing is neither baseless nor immoral. I am certain that many rebuttals will ensue. Bear in mind, however, that while many may not find file sharing immoral, the government finds it illegal.

Mike LaRiviere

[furrina]

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Bear in mind, however, that while many may not find file sharing immoral, the government finds it illegal.

Mike LaRiviere


Those are very intelligent points, and I'm not in anyway raising argument. I just want to clarify something (perhaps I'm wrong about this?) -- I don't think file sharing itself is illegal. What is illegal is downloading (obtaining without purchase) copyrighted materials such as music, software, tv shows. Also illegal is the distributing of those materials, i.e. making them avl. for download. File sharing is legal, I can share my vacation video via bittorent (if i figured out how to do it) without running foul of any law.
The RIAA, etc. is trying to go after the creators of the clients (kazaa etc.) but their reasoning is that those clients enable, or were made for the purpose of, the illegal acts mentioned above. Current thinking is that this won't hold up in court.

Also: I think Azureus has a very pretty blue frog :rolleyes:

[musicpyrite]

OK, I'll admit that I'm illegaly downloading TV shows if you can prove it to me. I have no problem with admiting that, if someone can prove it to me.

Just tell me what the difference is between saving a TV show on my Mac, and downlading it via BitTorrent. (and keep in mind I do not upload anyting in BitTorrent, there is a way to stop uploads, so I'm just downloading)


also, keep in mind that I don't want to start a flame war, please respond in a reasonable maner. :)

[kanker]

Just tell me what the difference is between saving a TV show on my Mac, and downlading it via BitTorrent. (and keep in mind I do not upload anyting in BitTorrent, there is a way to stop uploads, so I'm just downloading)Unless BitTorrent has a license to distribute the copyrighted material that you are downloading, then their distributing said works it is illegal, making your downloads is illegal. I'll agree that in the case of broadcast television, it's a VERY fine line between taping for personal use and downloading, but it's the use of the unlicensed middleman that causes the problem.

Sorry if I come off a little strong on this issue, but I have been a professional musician since I graduated from high school 15 years ago. Every dollar I have ever earned as an adult has come from music, so when I see people flaunting the copyright laws that are the only line of defense for the creative professional's intellectual property rights, it really pisses me off. Tremendously. If artists, directors, programmers etc... wish to allow file sharing of their intellectual property, then I say more power to them, just don't make that decision for them and deprive them of income that they justly deserve.

[nerd]

Regarding file sharing, I will use an anecdote to illustrate the position of the proponents. Your friend buys a book, reads it, decides it was a good read, and gives you the book. You then read the book. According to US copyright laws as applicable to file sharing, you and your friend have just committed illegal acts. Your friend has distributed a copyrighted work, and you have violated copyright laws by not acquiring a license for this work. Of course, you did not commit a wrong; people commit this act by the millions at state-sanctioned libraries.

Mike LaRiviere


You're missing an important distinction here. In this context, "distribution" involves making copies. If your friend had photocopied the book and given it to you, then he would have been distributing a copyrighted work. Obviously it's not illegal to check a book out of the library, loan a CD to a friend, etc.

Regarding the ethics of downloading copyrighted stuff, it seems pretty straightforward to me. If you believe in the concept of intellectual property, then illegally downloading copyrighted material is "wrong". It doesn't belong to you.

[MikeLaRiviere]

I'm glad someone brought up this point, as it had been an idea in my mind while I wrote the statement. Photocopying information in a library is legal, and it is not stealing. The fact of the matter is that intellectual property is "soft" property; therefore, the price is artificially set by the producer or some middle party (i.e., the RIAA). With regard to musicians, unless the musician records and distributes the work personally, very little money actually goes to the musician; take a look at this link (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8232). Additionally, I doubt anyone would consider summaries of books, either verbal from a friend or written from SparkNotes, etc., to be illegal. What are summaries but "compressed" versions of the original work? Of course, much is lost. But then again, what is the MP3 or AAC file but a compressed piece of music? Ninety percent of the original information is lost. This idea is analogous to a two minute advertisement for a television show.

My problem with intellectual property is this: copyright laws were written to prevent others from copying and selling (i.e., profitting from) the works of others. For instance, it is illegal for a movie pirate to tape a showing and sell the resulting videos. Unfortunately, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is broader than the USA PATRIOT Act; further, its contents contradict earlier legislation that stipulates that copying for personal use is legal.

These are just a few thoughts to bear in mind. If you're morally opposed to downloading or uploading files, don't do it, otherwise you won't be able to sleep at night. If you're not morally opposed to file sharing, just recognize that US laws may restrict your activity.

Mike LaRiviere

[lordmac]

Well moraly spaking in my opinion downloading tv shows is one thing( i mean its basicly the same as tivoing something.) ITs the other stuff that I think is wrong. The thing that I think is the most moraly wrong to download is software and games and a little bit music. I Know that the artist dont get much from the albums they sell buts more then they get when you download them illeagaly and as for software and movies what your doing is stealling some that somebody or people worked quite hard on and making it so they are not rewarded for there hard work. I mean if you spent 2 years devloping a peice of software and then people just came along and just stoll it how would you fell after puting sll that time in to it.

-I ask you think of the morality of it before you do it.

[nspeds]

First things first: let's not confuse illegality with immorality. Just because an act is illegal does not necessitate that it is immoral. Let us recall Rosa Parks and her situation. Having made this statement, I am sure many will argue that file sharing is immoral, which brings me to my second point: file sharing is legal in Canada (here is a link (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html) to the story). This statement I make to point out that the morality of file sharing is subjective.

The claim that there is a distinction between legal ethics and ethics is a valid point. However, I will have to attack your reasoning. Because of the first claim you made (that a distinction exists) and because of the second claim you made (that File-Sharing is legal in Canada), the only conclusion you can reach is that "legal ethics" are subjective, not morality. If that was the point of your reasoning, then your logic is fine. However, I am hard-pressed to believe that morality is subjective (even though it probably is) based in the subjectivity of legal ethics (since the first premise, in fact, claims that a distinction exists).

[nspeds]

Well moraly spaking in my opinion downloading tv shows is one thing( i mean its basicly the same as tivoing something.) ITs the other stuff that I think is wrong. The thing that I think is the most moraly wrong to download is software and games and a little bit music. I Know that the artist dont get much from the albums they sell buts more then they get when you download them illeagaly and as for software and movies what your doing is stealling some that somebody or people worked quite hard on and making it so they are not rewarded for there hard work. I mean if you spent 2 years devloping a peice of software and then people just came along and just stoll it how would you fell after puting sll that time in to it.

-I ask you think of the morality of it before you do it.

The problem with evaluating the moral worth of actions before committing them and using morality as a proper measure of "what is right" is that since morality is subjective, we could have murderers killing people on the justification that killing is moral in their mind.

On a more philosophical level, yes, different moral realms exist (ie. the teleological and the deontological), however, the average consumer isn't aware of the discrepencies that exist between the two concepts.

I think laws in a nation-state are implemented in order to negate the inherent subjectivity of morality. In this sense, when you commit an action that may please you on a moral level, it wouldn't please society because they subscribe to the law (in tacit agreement that they will never agree with each other on a moral level).

If you don't care about your community shaking its head at you when you download songs, then you are set to go. However, when the police comes knocking your door, citing the moral laws you abide by won't delay the process of them reciting your Miranda rights.

[netytan]

How ironic that from the moment we can see the right way up we are taught to share, then we grow up and find out that we've been taught a load of ****: assuming of course that it is your oppion that file sharing is wrong!

In my oppion all human knowledge is or should be free, if only for he simple reasoning that even if you read a book word for word, watch a DVD or listen to music the knowledge gained/experiance is subject to interpretation (like the rest of reality) rather than being a true copy - so how can copyright really exist?

It the your mind that creates the world.

In my oppion its stupidity, yes let the artists who created the work reep the rewards as they deserve!

But this is out of controle, i have not met one person who can honestly claim not to have broken this law at some point in my whole life... so all you people who are arguing against this i am sorry to say, are hipacrits :eek:.

Just chill and dont take things too seriously!

Later,

Mark.