Deadalive1 beat me to it. There is no way to prove either the staff or a random person did it, but it stands to reason that under the absence of proof, neither should be accused. I don't understand why people readily jump ship and say the staffers contacted FSF, when it's just as likely another random member did with the myriad of information in this thread. If someone points a finger, they better have some evidence/backing to their argument, and so far, everyone in this thread that has accused their staff of promoting their own website has failed to provide any such items of interest.
@ringhunter
Someone/A group releasing exclusive rips or he/she/them being internal encoders where membership is restricted to some is not the main cause of all this hate here,now is it?The problem is when these people go around restricting the members from sharing these release with others they want to share it with.Wanting so badly to be the "Scene in p2p"?:lol:
You and I won't see eye to eye on this particular case. I have a giant list of reasons for it, but safe to say, I belong to the "uploaders risk their social liberty to get stuff out to us, we should respect the rules they set on the material" camp. Many a country have no laws on downloading, but they do restrict uploading etc. As such, I've always deemed it the lowest possible form of gratitude to respect an uploader's wish to maintain exclusives where they were released/intended for. There is nothing wrong with that outlook, and if you truly think there is, then ask yourself why the FLAC ripping scene hasn't been torn apart by people scrambling/racing around the rips. With the exception of W&W, every DDL board/tracker/blog maintains its own releases, with very few examples shown where exclusivity was questioned/the request of the uploader was ignored. It isn't about being "scene in p2p" or going against the fundamentals the protocol was based on, it's more about respect/and knowing the value of one's word and putting the security of those who need it (but risk it) as a priority. If you find that inane, that's your opinion, but why deprive someone who values such things of his only wish?
I see a lot of groups that consider certain sites their "home", and so their releases are called "exclusive" to that site since it's where they're posted first, but those releases are spread far and wide once they're posted on said sites, and I don't see any attempt to control that from happening from a majority of the well-known groups. Maybe I've missed all the "Don't share our releases anywhere" messages from those major groups?
You and I both know that it's much harder to police larger trackers/swarms, especially when a lot of them don't have a single initial seeder. However, I do agree with you that generally no effort is put forth in stopping the spread/racing of P2P releases around. I
still don't see why people think it's such a breaking point when a group decides to change a very insignificant part of their illicit actions to better suit
themselves. You will still be getting the releases you have always intended to hunt down, you just won't be getting
some that you weren't going to get anyway.
Above all, I will repeat this again. They are
not trying to be 1337/hidden/stop people from getting their content. They actually have recruitment/interview debates going on in the forums, because they genuinely want to share their files, but they value security. Surely everyone can argue that once you put something on the internet, it's a privacy travesty waiting to occur, but at the same time, there's nothing wrong with wanting the best of both worlds when it comes to a healthily sized member-base as well as a secure one. If any person finds such a concept unappealing, said person might want to reconsider
where they choose to argue this point.
