Why is there no server in the USA that I can do port forwarding with? The closest one is in Canada. This is less about speed and more about needing my traffic to come out from the USA.
I'd asked support about this myself a month ago and here's the reply I got:
Thank you for contacting us about your port forwarding issue and I apologize that you are experiencing this. Port forwarding is used on our service for mainly torrenting purposes.
Downloading copyrighted material is illegal and the majority of
torrenting in the United States consists of that. Torrenting is not
allowed in the United States so port forwarding is not allowed on
American servers. Torrenting is legal in other countries where we do
have servers and those servers do have and support port forwarding.
Thank you, Shawn M,, Level I Tech Support
I suppose that makes sense as a CYA move by PIA.
You typically don't need port forwarding for torrenting anyway, at least for public trackers (although it'll usually take longer to connect to a swarm using magnet links without port forwarding, but it still works), and most private trackers generally prohibit vpn use anyway because a vpn's shared IP addresses can interfere with a private tracker being able to keep track of ratios, etc.
I'd asked support about this myself a month ago and here's the reply I got:
Thank you for contacting us about your port forwarding issue and I apologize that you are experiencing this. Port forwarding is used on our service for mainly torrenting purposes.
Downloading copyrighted material is illegal and the majority of
torrenting in the United States consists of that. Torrenting is not
allowed in the United States so port forwarding is not allowed on
American servers. Torrenting is legal in other countries where we do
have servers and those servers do have and support port forwarding.
Thank you, Shawn M,, Level I Tech Support
I suppose that makes sense as a CYA move by PIA.
....
Torrenting is not
disallowed or illegal in the United States, it is not true that "Torrenting is not
allowed in the United States". What is not 'allowed' and illegal in the United States is downloading (or distributing. e,g. uploading) copyrighted material without permission of the entity which has legal rights to the copyrighted material, which is basically theft.
So, Torrenting
its self is allowed and legal in the United States, its the theft activity which
is illegal in the United States and if its done via Torrenting then that makes the Torrenting application use an instrument of the theft activity and thus illegal for that theft activity use.
Torrenting
can happen all day long and is permitted and legal in the United States
as long as it is not used as an instrument of the copyrighted material theft activity.
The theft activity via Torrenting is the reason people get caught downloading/uploading copyrighted material without permission of the entity which has legal rights to the copyrighted material, not the Torrenting its self because that's just an instrument used to commit the theft activity.
Considering that almost 90% of Torrenting use is taking (theft of) copyrighted material without permission of the entity which has legal rights to the copyrighted material; Its easy to see why one would think Torrenting is disallowed and illegal in the United States as the majority of people caught are using Torrenting applications to take copyrighted material without permission of the entity which has legal rights to the copyrighted material. The law in the United States does not make Torrenting its self illegal or disallowed, as long as its not used as an instrument to commit basically what is theft.
Except making a copy of something is distinct from commandeering possession of
something. By definition, theft removes the original, piracy makes a
copy. Therefore, piracy != theft.
Civil law is just criminal law that has been decriminalized or is not criminalized...
If you really were an attorney you'd know better than to express such an ignorant opinion of the law. If you really were an attorney you'd recognize how counterproductive it is to post walls of verbose and redundant text. You don't win arguments of any kind, let alone legal arguments, by sheer volume of words and repetition.
Your verbosity impresses no one of any consequence but yourself. “Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination” Benjamin Disraeli
The only ones who are the least bit impressed with your opinions of the law are the certifiably insane sock puppets, robert_lazar, MahmoudAddul, Marco_Wollank, et al.
Here's some context for you: You've deceitfully attempted to conflate copyright infringement, in the form of mere file sharing, with a crime, by blurring the lines between civil and criminal. That's the plain and obvious takeaway of your redundant and verbose posting. You could have been honest (is that even possible for an attorney?) and responded to Catcher749 by claiming that copyright infringement, in the form of file sharing, is a tort. That could have helped correct his misunderstanding of the law. But you didn't do that. You played the part of the oh so scary lawyer with your "criminal" law blather which is completely off-point to the subject matter at hand.
Copyright infringement isn't subject to criminal prosecution unless the "infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. 506(a). Catcher749 has only discussed file sharing, so he doesn't fit the criteria. If you really were an attorney, with all the intellectual property law expertise you feign, you'd already know that.
So either: 1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one. 2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations. 3) You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
Here's some context for you: You've deceitfully attempted to conflate copyright infringement, in the form of mere file sharing, with a crime, by blurring the lines between civil and criminal. That's the plain and obvious takeaway of your redundant and verbose posting. You could have been honest (is that even possible for an attorney?) and responded to Catcher749 by claiming that copyright infringement, in the form of file sharing, is a tort. That could have helped correct his misunderstanding of the law. But you didn't do that. You played the part of the oh so scary lawyer with your "criminal" law blather which is completely off-point to the subject matter at hand.
Copyright infringement isn't subject to criminal prosecution unless the "infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. 506(a). Catcher749 has only discussed file sharing, so he doesn't fit the criteria. If you really were an attorney, with all the intellectual property law expertise you feign, you'd already know that.
So either: 1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one. 2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations. 3) You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
Oh he was an attorney, for Google, until he was fired, probably for incompetence, which he demonstrates here constantly. I think that may be the source of his inferiority complex that he has to compensate for with redundant walls of text to cloud his stupidity.
You trumpet "context" when it serves your own purposes and ignore it the rest of the time. In the context of Catcher's original argument that "making a copy of something does not equal theft," you went way off-point. You conflated criminal for civil by even bringing up the subject of criminal law in the first place. Feel free to elaborate on tort law, but droning on and on about 'criminal copyright infringement,' is off-point. If you really were an attorney you'd comprehend that.
At best Catcher947 might be guilty of a tort, but that's all. All your scary "criminal law" bloviating, in the context of bittorrent file sharing, is right out of the copyright troll's playbook. And so I can't resist but to add an additional item.
So either: 1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one. 2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations. 3)
You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and
incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your
community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free
time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
4) You're a copyright troll attorney and like virtually all copyright troll attorneys you're incredibly ignorant, unethical,
and incompetent. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your
community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free
time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
Oh he was an attorney, for Google, until he was fired, probably for incompetence, which he demonstrates here constantly. I think that may be the source of his inferiority complex that he has to compensate for with redundant walls of text to cloud his stupidity.
yet another one of your lies catcher - i was not fired by Google, I left of my own free will to join a few others in establishing a law firm because I could not in good conscience abide the gross violations of internet users privacy by Google.
But Microsoft cleared your conscience? Hahahahaha.
yet another one of your lies catcher - i was not fired by Google, I left of my own free will to join a few others in establishing a law firm because I could not in good conscience abide the gross violations of internet users privacy by Google.
I was hoping to be able to find at least one positive thing to say of you; and there it is. If it's really true that you left Google on your own accord, and for the reasons you state, and that you left in good standing with them (although you didn't state that you did) then good for you! Did you leave in good standing? Is there any evidence of that, such as a recommendation letter, etc.?
Unfortunately that's all negated if you've become a copyright troll lawyer in a copyright troll law firm working for the copyright cartel.
Your demeanor on this forum calls into doubt your character, sanity, anger management skills and employability. As such I must question the veracity of your claims of a voluntary Google departure. Google probably would not have outright fired you. That tends to get very messy, especially when it comes to firing an embittered staff attorney of your ilk who's likely to file an ugly lawsuit in retaliation. More than likely Google determined that sending you off yet again for more counseling and anger management classes would avail nothing. So they encouraged your "resignation" with a golden parachute after you signed an NDA and a "covenant not to sue." That's SOP for Google, and many other large corporations, in how they deal with "problem employees," and it's especially the case with any staff attorney they need to dump. It's much cheaper to pay them off than fire them and run the risk of a nasty court battle.
So did you leave Google with a nice recommendation letter? Or was it just the golden parachute?
This thread just got interesting. I have been suggesting Irryie must have been disbarred for his inane nonsense for a while now. Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so because of his nonsense.
And who are we kidding? He was sent to anger management classes and promptly kicked ot as he got angry and screamed at them for hours. He has zero self control.
This thread just got interesting. I have been suggesting Irryie must have been disbarred for his inane nonsense for a while now. Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so because of his nonsense.
And who are we kidding? He was sent to anger management classes and promptly kicked ot as he got angry and screamed at them for hours. He has zero self control.
Really? This is fact? He threw a tantrum in an anger management class?
You trumpet "context" when it serves your own purposes and ignore it the rest of the time. In the context of Catcher's original argument that "making a copy of something does not equal theft," you went way off-point. You conflated criminal for civil by even bringing up the subject of criminal law in the first place. Feel free to elaborate on tort law, but droning on and on about 'criminal copyright infringement,' is off-point. If you really were an attorney you'd comprehend that.
At best Catcher947 might be guilty of a tort, but that's all. All your scary "criminal law" bloviating, in the context of bittorrent file sharing, is right out of the copyright troll's playbook. And so I can't resist but to add an additional item.
So either: 1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one. 2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations. 3)
You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and
incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your
community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free
time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
4) You're a copyright troll attorney and like virtually all copyright troll attorneys you're incredibly ignorant, unethical,
and incompetent. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your
community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free
time each day
to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
I vote #4. He shows up every time someone mentions getting a DMCA notice. He claims to be a "Constitutional Law" focus, but he has a vested interest in making everyone think that all DMCA notices are real and legitimate and that all file sharing is illegal. He once even suggested that "Linux" is illegal to share since I never purchased a copy of the distro I downloaded.
He hates Linux, is incredibly ignorant of how the Free Software Community works, and absolutely loves Microsoft as they are his new Google.
Your asking these questions because you know that I do not reveal such specific personal information on the internet...
The evidence supports just the opposite. You're the one who pawns yourself off as the knowledgeable attorney, expert in an array of legal subjects. You're the one who's boasted of having worked for Google. You're the one who's boasted of voluntarily leaving Google over supposed ethical considerations. Thankfully you've never boasted about your spelling and syntax skills, but you've boasted of a great deal else. In short, you're a braggart, and braggarts like you, whether you recognize it in yourself or not, "reveal such specific personal information on the internet." You've already done a great deal of it.
Now when you're called out for your wild and far-fetched claims and asked to substantiate them you play the classic game that all incompetent attorneys play, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff." Or in your case, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff and say, 'You're a liar' as many times as humanly possible in a sentence." The fact that you use that lawyer tactic is the one and only reason so far that I have any cause to believe that you just might happen to be an attorney, though an incompetent one. Scientologists play exactly the same game, which is why I'd commented in another thread that you and your tactics remind me a great deal of a couple Scientologists that I've known in the past.
Your refusal to answer a couple of simple questions, especially after all your prior braggadocio, is indeed telling. But I'll give you another chance to redeem yourself. These are simple questions that don't fall under the purview of your Google NDA:
1) Did you leave Google with a good letter of recommendation? 2) If you applied for a job at Google right now would they even consider hiring you again?
Yeah that's your go-to phrase to everything, "you're a liar!" You're an idiot"! "Confirmation bias"! Just imagine him in court.
You claimed you "left" Google because your moral compass just couldn't tolerate their privacy violations, so you immediately joined the NSAs #2 partner in data mining, Microsoft. Now that is hilarious.
He has an excuse for everything. And since he is a known liar, I do not believe any of it. He makes edits to every single post he ever makes. He says it is something to do with his PC. Can *ANYONE* confirm a problem with their PC or browser that could support his lie? I doubt it.
I think he has to make edits because he cannot say anything correct the first time, and is too angry to slow down and make some semblance of a well thought statement.
He will doubtlessly scream that he is not a liar and that everyone of his innumerable critics is a liar. That is the only defense he can manage.
But all I hear from him is him repeatedly saying "Interneck" and "Netwok". Lol.
You know nothing of my Google NDA, the contents you idiot. That's is known only to me and Google. There is no way possible you can say what does or does not fall under the purview of the NDA.
Yes and no. I haven't seen your Google NDA so it's self-evident I don't know what's in it. However, one thing we can know for certain is your NDA doesn't prohibit your disclosing your Google recommendation letter, if they'd given you one. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume, based on that and your evasiveness, not to mention another dose of your "Liar, liar, pants on fire" defense, that Google did not give you a letter of recommendation. That in itself is very telling.
So thanks for answering that question.
In the future you should really consider toning down the braggadocio. All that personal disclosure too often results in considerable embarrassment to yourself.
"Irryie has a brain." is also a lie because he is clearly brainless. "Interneck" "Netwok". <-- That is all the brainless pseudo lawyer can say.
"Interneck" "Netwok", you made those up and I never used those words except in reply to you to tell you you made them up. Are you taking lying and idiot lessons from tomeworm/catcher749 ?
Since you clearly believe yourself to be a master of lying and idiocy, may I ask if it is personal experience, or does practice make perfect for you?
All I read from Irryie is the words "Interneck" and "Netwok" repeated over and over? Anyone know what odd language this is he is using and what he may be trying to say?
irryie uses the words "lie" and "liar" as often as robertlazar says "arshole"; they could be one person ;-)
They do share very similar and limited vocabularies, and they are equally redundant, although Irryie is far more verbose. If they're not the same person they certainly exhibit very similar mental pathologies.
Comments
Thank you,
Shawn M,, Level I Tech Support
I suppose that makes sense as a CYA move by PIA.
You typically don't need port forwarding for torrenting anyway, at least for public trackers (although it'll usually take longer to connect to a swarm using magnet links without port forwarding, but it still works), and most private trackers generally prohibit vpn use anyway because a vpn's shared IP addresses can interfere with a private tracker being able to keep track of ratios, etc.
Except making a copy of something is distinct from commandeering possession of something. By definition, theft removes the original, piracy makes a copy. Therefore, piracy != theft.
Your verbosity impresses no one of any consequence but yourself. “Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination” Benjamin Disraeli
The only ones who are the least bit impressed with your opinions of the law are the certifiably insane sock puppets, robert_lazar, MahmoudAddul, Marco_Wollank, et al.
Copyright infringement isn't subject to criminal prosecution unless the "infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. 506(a). Catcher749 has only discussed file sharing, so he doesn't fit the criteria. If you really were an attorney, with all the intellectual property law expertise you feign, you'd already know that.
So either:
1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one.
2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations.
3) You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free time each day to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
Oh he was an attorney, for Google, until he was fired, probably for incompetence, which he demonstrates here constantly. I think that may be the source of his inferiority complex that he has to compensate for with redundant walls of text to cloud his stupidity.
At best Catcher947 might be guilty of a tort, but that's all. All your scary "criminal law" bloviating, in the context of bittorrent file sharing, is right out of the copyright troll's playbook. And so I can't resist but to add an additional item.
So either:
1) You're not an attorney and are only pretending to be one.
2) You were an attorney but were disbarred for incompetence, duplicity and ethics violations.
3) You are an attorney, but an incredibly ignorant, unethical, and incompetent one. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free time each day to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
4) You're a copyright troll attorney and like virtually all copyright troll attorneys you're incredibly ignorant, unethical, and incompetent. You therefore have a terrible reputation in your community and can't get any clients, which gives you many hours of free time each day to post walls and walls of angry text on this forum.
I was hoping to be able to find at least one positive thing to say of you; and there it is. If it's really true that you left Google on your own accord, and for the reasons you state, and that you left in good standing with them (although you didn't state that you did) then good for you! Did you leave in good standing? Is there any evidence of that, such as a recommendation letter, etc.?
Unfortunately that's all negated if you've become a copyright troll lawyer in a copyright troll law firm working for the copyright cartel.
Your demeanor on this forum calls into doubt your character, sanity, anger management skills and employability. As such I must question the veracity of your claims of a voluntary Google departure. Google probably would not have outright fired you. That tends to get very messy, especially when it comes to firing an embittered staff attorney of your ilk who's likely to file an ugly lawsuit in retaliation. More than likely Google determined that sending you off yet again for more counseling and anger management classes would avail nothing. So they encouraged your "resignation" with a golden parachute after you signed an NDA and a "covenant not to sue." That's SOP for Google, and many other large corporations, in how they deal with "problem employees," and it's especially the case with any staff attorney they need to dump. It's much cheaper to pay them off than fire them and run the risk of a nasty court battle.
So did you leave Google with a nice recommendation letter? Or was it just the golden parachute?
And who are we kidding? He was sent to anger management classes and promptly kicked ot as he got angry and screamed at them for hours. He has zero self control.
He hates Linux, is incredibly ignorant of how the Free Software Community works, and absolutely loves Microsoft as they are his new Google.
The evidence supports just the opposite. You're the one who pawns yourself off as the knowledgeable attorney, expert in an array of legal subjects. You're the one who's boasted of having worked for Google. You're the one who's boasted of voluntarily leaving Google over supposed ethical considerations. Thankfully you've never boasted about your spelling and syntax skills, but you've boasted of a great deal else. In short, you're a braggart, and braggarts like you, whether you recognize it in yourself or not, "reveal such specific personal information on the internet." You've already done a great deal of it.
Now when you're called out for your wild and far-fetched claims and asked to substantiate them you play the classic game that all incompetent attorneys play, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff." Or in your case, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff and say, 'You're a liar' as many times as humanly possible in a sentence." The fact that you use that lawyer tactic is the one and only reason so far that I have any cause to believe that you just might happen to be an attorney, though an incompetent one. Scientologists play exactly the same game, which is why I'd commented in another thread that you and your tactics remind me a great deal of a couple Scientologists that I've known in the past.
Your refusal to answer a couple of simple questions, especially after all your prior braggadocio, is indeed telling. But I'll give you another chance to redeem yourself. These are simple questions that don't fall under the purview of your Google NDA:
1) Did you leave Google with a good letter of recommendation?
2) If you applied for a job at Google right now would they even consider hiring you again?
I think he has to make edits because he cannot say anything correct the first time, and is too angry to slow down and make some semblance of a well thought statement.
He will doubtlessly scream that he is not a liar and that everyone of his innumerable critics is a liar. That is the only defense he can manage.
But all I hear from him is him repeatedly saying "Interneck" and "Netwok". Lol.
Yes and no. I haven't seen your Google NDA so it's self-evident I don't know what's in it. However, one thing we can know for certain is your NDA doesn't prohibit your disclosing your Google recommendation letter, if they'd given you one. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume, based on that and your evasiveness, not to mention another dose of your "Liar, liar, pants on fire" defense, that Google did not give you a letter of recommendation. That in itself is very telling.
So thanks for answering that question.
In the future you should really consider toning down the braggadocio. All that personal disclosure too often results in considerable embarrassment to yourself.
"Interneck" "Netwok". <-- That is all the brainless pseudo lawyer can say.