EVE Search - Time to fly the Jolly Roger at half mast

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Time to fly the Jolly Roger at half mast

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:00:00 - [91] Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it. Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you. It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods. -------- Ideas for: Mining
EliteSlave Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:17:00 - [92] Originally by: Abrazzar Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it. Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you. It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods. Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? You have yet to make any argument that is sound and isn't far into space. Property is Property, either you own it, your dont, and if you don't you are stealing it plain and simple. If you host the hash files to the stolen property you are as guilty as the people sharing it as you are providing easy access to the stolen products.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.19 01:21:00 - [93] I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property. But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
EliteSlave Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.19 03:35:00 - [94] Originally by: Blane Xero I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property. But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file. See the problem is, you dont actually own the software, You bought the privlege to use the software. Why do people think everything is entitled and free to them? I mean seriously what is wrong with you that makes you think that some people's hard work can be free to your liking?
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.19 04:06:00 - [95] Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song. When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it. Same with DvD's. Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Drax Darksun Damage Incorporated.	Posted - 2009.04.19 04:10:00 - [96] Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song. When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it. Same with DvD's. Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development. ummmm..... <3
Evthron Macyntire	Posted - 2009.04.19 06:56:00 - [97] Edited by: Evthron Macyntire on 19/04/2009 06:58:40 Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song. When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it. Same with DvD's. Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development. Are all the straws gone yet? A few left? Ok, answer me this: What is the difference between something you hear on the radio and record, and something you download from the internet? ... It's not that hard. The radio station pays a fee to be able to play that song. You don't pay anything when you pirate the music. Hey, this means you can now say, that when you buy something, you are simply performing the task of a radio station by letting other people have access to it, just like the radio does! **ing ****. Circular arguments are teh fun! ------------------------------ Sigs like this.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.19 07:22:00 - [98] EliteSlave, Surfin's Plunderbunny is with you on this matter o7 Pomp FTW!!!
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.19 09:01:00 - [99] Originally by: Evthron Macyntire Edited by: Evthron Macyntire on 19/04/2009 06:58:40 Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song. When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it. Same with DvD's. Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development. Are all the straws gone yet? A few left? Ok, answer me this: What is the difference between something you hear on the radio and record, and something you download from the internet? ... It's not that hard. The radio station pays a fee to be able to play that song. You don't pay anything when you pirate the music. Hey, this means you can now say, that when you buy something, you are simply performing the task of a radio station by letting other people have access to it, just like the radio does! **ing ***. Circular arguments are teh fun! Tell me a real difference between me recording something from the radio, and downloading it from a torrent? Neither cost you money, so the difference to the individual is Nill. Your counter straw-man falls flat on his face. But i'll help You.* The only difference is convenience. In this day and age of digital radio, quality is a non-issue and most even have call-ins where you can request songs. Couldn't be ****ing simpler if there was a damn manual for it. The fact that the radio station pays for the right to play the song has nothing to do with the fact that I was addressing, either, which was Progression of "pirates" as we are called. And it seems for every other f'cking generation there is some form of "Questionable" way to obtain and store your media. First it was Radio and Taping, Then it became TV and VCR, then it just moved from VCR to DVD, and now its moved from that to Internet and Hard drive. You pay for the internet like you would a TV license (At least in some countries) and you pay for your TV like you would a f'cking computer. The Industry has always found SOMETHING to complain about since they are money hungry idiots who like more profit for no effort. I have not once seen an artist, actor or band complain about "pirates". Its always the label companies, or Hollywood Production Companies. And in the age of digital distribution where all it takes to have another copy of a song/movie/piece of software ready for sale, is to have it be via download. No extra cost for anyone except the f'kin customers. I see no point in buying all my music from somewhere like itunes, and theres a nice little comic strip by XKCD that will save me time typing it out. I do not deny that pirating is against the law. I Do not deny that the pirate bay was involved, all i've argued about in this thread is the fact the people who were convicted, should not have been for the reasons they were. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
dr doooo	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:01:00 - [100] Originally by: EliteSlave Originally by: Blane Xero 1. Actually they do, but 4 guys cannot really "moderate" thousands of entries a day, eh?. 2. They did. But most gun shops in the US provide a means for killing or severely injuring others. Would you still argue that it is guilty by association if someone with a gun permit and all the other faff bought a gun and decided "Screw it" and offed his wife? Was the merchant to blame? 3. They didn't "Allow it to continue" they simply kept their service running whilst deleting what was brought to their attention. Oh and an FYI. None of the companies that took them to court did any survey of the site, to see how much content was ACTUALLY COPYRIGHTED. The TPB guys hired an independant surveyor iirc and it came back that about 60-80% of the stuff was legit, uncopyrighted software/music from independant programmers/musicians. If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence. By that reasoning shouldn't most of the internet, including Eve, be shut down. It is pretty much impossible for any kind of Web2.0 company to comprehensively 'police' themselves to make sure they aren't facilitating some sort of illegal activity. AFAIK TPB, like EVE, Google etc. took action when things were brought to their attention.

Doctor Penguin Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:19:00 - [101] Originally by: EliteSlave Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? I can, and I have before. A council builds a park. This park is then used by drug users. The council is then sent down for selling drugs. ________________________________________________ http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:38:00 - [102] Originally by: EliteSlave Originally by: Abrazzar Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it. Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you. It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods. Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? You have yet to make any argument that is sound and isn't far into space. Property is Property, either you own it, your dont, and if you don't you are stealing it plain and simple. If you host the hash files to the stolen property you are as guilty as the people sharing it as you are providing easy access to the stolen products. This is factually untrue.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.19 12:50:00 - [103] Considering in some countries, it is not illegal to have a Digital backup (Believe canada does this) It wouldnt be easy to determine if the file sharing going on is even illegal. Jus sayin' Also, the only undoubtedly illegal files up on TPB are really camera recordings of cinema showings. As those break laws BEFORE they hit the torrents area. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
EliteSlave Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:47:00 - [104] Originally by: Doctor Penguin Originally by: EliteSlave Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? I can, and I have before. A council builds a park. This park is then used by drug users. The council is then sent down for selling drugs. Ok that is far into space, but Ill answer it just for ****s and giggles. A council builds a park... This park is then used by drug users. The County / City / Township that this park resides in its Police Force moderate the drug use.
EliteSlave Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.19 15:58:00 - [105] Originally by: Blane Xero Considering in some countries, it is not illegal to have a Digital backup (Believe canada does this) It wouldnt be easy to determine if the file sharing going on is even illegal. Jus sayin' Also, the only undoubtedly illegal files up on TPB are really camera recordings of cinema showings. As those break laws BEFORE they hit the torrents area. Yes most countries do have a digital backup law, and I fully support them. But most people that use the DBL are actually the main perpetrators of the filesharing community, ie: Put an ISO of Windows Vista Ultimate up the iso onto the web to be downloaded by others. which is where the problem lies. I actually support DRM to a degree but the problems with DRM need to be fixed immediately
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:55:00 - [106] Originally by: Blane Xero The Industry has always found SOMETHING to complain about since they are money hungry idiots who like more profit for no effort. I have not once seen an artist, actor or band complain about "pirates". Its always the label companies, or Hollywood Production Companies. And in the age of digital distribution where all it takes to have another copy of a song/movie/piece of software ready for sale, is to have it be via download. No extra cost for anyone except the f'kin customers. Id argue its because actors and the like are already paid what they are going to get for their work where as the production company needs to make a profit that covers their expenses. The actors already got what they were going to get out of their work so they could care less about a pirates activties, they already got paid. If a production company were to pay an actor say 1 million USD for their work on a movie, that company needs to make that 1 million back + however much they feel they need to go beyond "breaking even" to embark on the project in the first place, is it really so far fetched to think that they would be mindful of where each penny goes? -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.04.19 18:18:00 - [107] Originally by: EliteSlave See the problem is, you dont actually own the software, You bought the privlege to use the software. Why do people think everything is entitled and free to them? Because the owners of intellectual property encourage this thinking. When was the last time you saw a EULA or other license agreement BEFORE you handed over your money? These corporations are so obsessed with their profits that they don't want people to know that they aren't actually buying a song. They don't want people to know that the only thing they are buying is permission to play the song (and even then, only under certain circumstances). They don't want people to know that these corporations have stripped themselves of any and all legal responsibility for any damages that their property does (Microsoft, for example, has a clause in their EULA which prevents you from laying any claim on damages greater than 5 USD). They don't want people to know that they agree to give up their freedom of speech (once again, Microsoft has a clause which prevents people from benchmarking their software and comparing it to competitors). To put it bluntly, corporations are "evil empires" who see the consumer as objects, and not people. They seek to destroy the rights of others, but get indignant when their own rights are taken away. Their sole purpose in existence is to make as much money by any means possible. They would GLADLY enslave a minority race if they could get away with it. They would GLADLY lie, steal, cheat and/or kill if it would yield a profit and they could avoid any legal/financial repercussions.
Onus Mian Amarr Kingfisher Industries	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:01:00 - [108] I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities. Ultimately these companies own these movies, songs and programmes and you are paying for the right to own a copy of that media for personal use. You do not have the right to take that media, copy it and then make it freely available to those that want it without paying. Indeed you specifically agree not to do such actions when you purchase the media. So really what it comes down to is that you are an untrustworth individual who is incapable of honouring a simple agreement between two parties. You can dress that up however you want and try to demonise the companies who sell you this media but it doesn't change anything. Nothing worse than armchair revolutionaries whining about injustices that don't exist. ---- Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
The Wintersmith	Posted - 2009.04.19 21:52:00 - [109] You play/write/make music because you enjoy it Any musician that shares the corporate suit-type mentality of profit should come first before the entertainment needs to have a think.
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.04.19 22:26:00 - [110] Originally by: nahtoh And If I am not mistaken its a really recent one that was the result of years of lobbing by the entertaiment companies (and they appernttly used used some really shady tatics before it became law). Sure, and 9/11 was staged by George W. Bush to be able to war on terrorism. Let's buy into the conspiracy-theories. Everyone knows what the site is about, it's no surprise they get convicted for it. No-brainer really. IPRED on the other hand is some pretty scary stuff.

Mother Clanger Viziam	Posted - 2009.04.19 22:30:00 - [111] Originally by: Onus Mian I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child **ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities. I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk: How creativity is being strangled by the law In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945. Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them. So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child **ography just because they share the term "illegal". - MC
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.04.19 22:52:00 - [112] Originally by: Mother Clanger Originally by: Onus Mian I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child **ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities. I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk: How creativity is being strangled by the law In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945. Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them. So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child **ography just because they share the term "illegal". - MC You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?
Mother Clanger Viziam	Posted - 2009.04.20 00:04:00 - [113] Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 00:07:10 Originally by: Tobias Sjodin You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you? Yes, I did. No, he's not talking about piracy, in his words "taking other peoples content in wholesale and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner". Of course this is wrong. The point I'm making is that sites like piratebay flourish because of the same senselessness that is the current copyright system that he describes, that in many situations, the only way that people can get the digital media the way they want it, is through piracy. An example. I hear an artists song I like on the radio. I like that song and think I would like to hear what their other songs are like on their album(s) before I make any kind of purchase. Up till recently the only options I had to do this were sample a few singles on myspace, listen to a 30 second sample on iTunes Music Store, go into a music store and have the CD brought up on some headphones or pirate it. If I pirate it, even if I buy an album afterwards, even if I go and see the band live (which the artists get a much bigger percentage of), even if I delete all the music afterwards because I didn't like it as they filled up the album with 75% filler tracks because some studio exec told the artists the album had to be launched to coincide with their release schedule, even if I do so because it's the only way I can get a version that isn't only compatible with my iPod and nothing else, I'm still a pirate and I broke the law. And of course I've done exactly the same thing as someone who just wanted it for free. What would it have taken for the studios to provide their own ad supported streams of their listed musicians? Would they really lose that much money if they released a free 64kbps version of every album they put out? By forcing youtube to remove copyrighted music from all videos, are they not stabbing themselves in the foot by missing out on the introduction of their listed artists to a brand new audience every single day? I mean, by a very similar reasoning as this case, someone who posted one of those AMV videos to youtube was as guilty of copyright infringement as someone distributing the same track through a torrent file. And youtube as guilty as piratebay of facilitating that act. Youtube complied, they don't go to jail. Piratebay didn't, they go to jail. If I wanted to listen to a particular track, I would actually quite often go to youtube to listen to it. Youtube. How rediculous is that. Youtube made it not worth pirating to me. And instead of taking the lead and providing their own service, the studios took just made them stop. And now it's services like last.fm and spotify that are finally filling the gap that should have been provided years ago and made people pirate in the first place. I hope I've proved that what he's talking about regarding copyright in that video in terms of remixing and creativity, and what I'm talking about in terms of the reason for piracy being so prevalent are not mutually exclusive by any means. - MC [Edit]
Roymundo Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:07:00 - [114] Originally by: Abrazzar It's hard to play the victim in a ten thousand dollar suit and a million dollar salary. In a black and white conditioned populace, the content industry is exposing itself as the black tyrant towards the legitimate customers and no matter what TPB is doing, they will automatically viewed as the white knights, simply by opposing the black ones. Also the entertainment titans aren't doing themselves a favor. When the bread is scarce and the games are pay-only, the aristocrats are one small step away from the guillotine. Better keep the populace placid, numb and entertained. Then again, we haven't had a proper upheaval in the western world for 200 years. Go on, I'll stream it life from my new mobile. "legitimate customers"??? how is downloading songs, movies and games for free, knowingly illegaly, making you a legitimate customer?
Roymundo Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:11:00 - [115] Originally by: Blane Xero I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property. But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file. if you read the copyright agreement you would see that the files in question are for personal use only and not for redistribution, public showing, etc etc. just paying for it doesn't give you the right to do with it as you will.
Roymundo Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:15:00 - [116] Originally by: The Wintersmith Edited by: The Wintersmith on 19/04/2009 22:15:43 I play/write/make music because I enjoy it Any musician that shares the corporate suit-type mentality of profit should come first before the entertainment needs to have a think. i rather believe that most of them do it to get stinking filthy rich actually...... i'd write music and drive lamboghini's all day, and to hell with if i enjoy it or not.....
Roymundo Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:18:00 - [117] Originally by: Mother Clanger Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 00:07:10 Originally by: Tobias Sjodin You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you? An example. I hear an artists song I like on the radio. I like that song and think I would like to hear what their other songs are like on their album(s) before I make any kind of purchase. Up till recently the only options I had to do this were sample a few singles on myspace, listen to a 30 second sample on iTunes Music Store, go into a music store and have the CD brought up on some headphones or pirate it. If I pirate it, even if I buy an album afterwards, even if I go and see the band live (which the artists get a much bigger percentage of), even if I delete all the music afterwards because I didn't like it as they filled up the album with 75% filler tracks because some studio exec told the artists the album had to be launched to coincide with their release schedule, even if I do so because it's the only way I can get a version that isn't only compatible with my iPod and nothing else, I'm still a pirate and I broke the law. And of course I've done exactly the same thing as someone who just wanted it for free. - MC [Edit] problem is you wouldn't delete the pirate copies and go out and buy the real thing. you just wouldn't. you have it already at this stage. you just wouldn't.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:40:00 - [118] Originally by: Roymundo problem is you wouldn't delete the pirate copies and go out and buy the real thing. you just wouldn't. you have it already at this stage. you just wouldn't. Unless you are an idealist. However, those are far and few between.
masternerdguy Gallente Point of No Return Blade.	Posted - 2009.04.20 02:53:00 - [119] Edited by: masternerdguy on 20/04/2009 02:53:34 Edited by: masternerdguy on 20/04/2009 02:52:57 Originally by: Taedrin They don't want people to know that the only thing they are buying is permission to play the song (and even then, only under certain circumstances). They don't want people to know that these corporations have stripped themselves of any and all legal responsibility for any damages that their property does (Microsoft, for example, has a clause in their EULA which prevents you from laying any claim on damages greater than 5 USD). They don't want people to know that they agree to give up their freedom of speech (once again, Microsoft has a clause which prevents people from benchmarking their software and comparing it to competitors). You left off a few good ones: Microsoft's Frontpage application has a clause that says you cant use it to direspect the microsoft corporation. [] Apple has a clause that says they can change the agreement at any time without informing you and you are automatically bound by the new agreement. [] Not opposing or supporting, just thought I'd throw those in.
Reiisha Evolution KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.20 07:51:00 - [120] I wonder where this obsession with "artists and their rights" came from. A good musician makes music because they like it, not because they want to get rich. Sure, they can live off selling their stuff, but do they actually need 50 million dollars for what essentially comes down to 1 day of work, at most, for a song? Do they REALLY need to own entire islands in the pacific? Why are people with no musical talent whatsoever, who had no involvement at all in the creation of the music, entitled to even more of that money than the artists themselves are? The big companies are only interested in profits. They don't care about customers, they don't care about law, they don't care about anything other than their swiss bank accounts. That's reason enough for me to support whatever they oppose. "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.