Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Cheap offshore VPS for seedbox 10-20GB Disk space, 256MB RAM
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Cheap offshore VPS for seedbox 10-20GB Disk space, 256MB RAM

Require cheap offshore VPS for private seedbox 10-20GB disk space & 256MB RAM

Comments

  • How about RamNode? Check out their latest offer in the Netherlands
    (256mb, 90GB SSD-Cached $7.40/Quarter)

  • @skybucks100 said:
    How about RamNode? Check out their latest offer in the Netherlands
    (256mb, 90GB SSD-Cached $7.40/Quarter)

    RamNode doesn't allow torrents any more in NL. Check their AUP.

    OP can try INIZ, they have NL and UK location.

  • Budget $15-$20/yr, bandwidth 50-100GB

  • cfgguycfgguy Member, Host Rep

    your budget is too low for offshore vps.

  • Buy an online.net dedi at 9.99 Euro and see to your heart's content.

    Thanked by 1bashed
  • cfgguycfgguy Member, Host Rep

    @joelgm said:
    Buy an online.net dedi at 9.99 Euro and see to your heart's content.

    His budget is $15-20/yr.

  • @cfgguy said:
    His budget is $15-20/yr.

    Crap. Read that as per month.

  • Still a great deal per month thanks for sharing

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Why offshore? Nothing wrong with doing it on land. Unless, you know, you're stealing people's livelihood and disrespecting someone else's attempt at honest work.

    Thanked by 1DomainBop
  • I second a Offshore vps for seedbox or rapidleech if anyone allows?

  • NyrNyr Community Contributor, Veteran

    @jarland said:
    Unless, you know, you're stealing people's livelihood

    Copying ≠ stealing.

    If I download Photoshop from a torrent, I am just copying the software. I am not stealing hard disks from Adobe with the source code.

    Thanked by 1wrox
  • DroidzoneDroidzone Member
    edited November 2013

    Every software ought to have a Single user limited edition that's affordable by individuals. Not everyone has deep pockets to match the price payable by corporates. Unless the price becomes affordable, using pirated software will continue, just as it has always been.

    The Android market is a good example. The Windows 8 upgrade price intially is another. Those were affordable to people in the developing world too. You cant expect someone to part with 150% of his monthly income on software. Sure, there's a way-to not use the software. However, people are used to sharing. Libraries exist for a reason. People share books, resell old text books etc. Most heavier priced textbooks have a cheaper edition for sale in the developing world.

    Unfortunately the software market always turns a blind eye to the economy of its target audience. Until the issue is addressed, piracy will continue.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    @Nyr said:
    If I download Photoshop from a torrent, I am just copying the software. I am not stealing hard disks from Adobe with the source code.

    It's stealing because the sold product is the copy, the owner has requested that you pay for said copy of what they made, and you are choosing to take what they made without paying. You can play with terminology all you want but the moral equivalency is what matters and it's spot on.

    You do not under any circumstances have any right to claim what someone else made that you do not require to live under basic natural human rights.

    Unless the price becomes affordable

    People are just too impatient to save up for something to buy later and too selfish to care about someone else's rights, it's all about their perceived rights from their unreal senses of entitlement. If you can't afford software, learn to code your own.

  • NyrNyr Community Contributor, Veteran

    @jarland said:
    You do not under any circumstances have any right to claim what someone else made that you do not require to live under basic natural human rights.

    No, it is not the same copy, it doesn't even have the same features (support, updates...).

    And it isn't the same moral equivalent to stealing either: if I steal a car, someone loses a car, if I download Photoshop, no one loses a sale.

    That said, Photoshop is one of the few commercial software I actually use without a valid license. I usually pay for software I can afford to pay.

    Thanked by 2wrox Droidzone
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    So it's not immoral to take someone else's hard work and not compensate them as they requested? You have some right to what they made?

    It's the moral equivalent to stealing and I don't care what you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night.

    The product IS the copy. That is what they are selling, digital copies. You took a copy and didn't pay their requested compensation. Therefore you took the product, that product being a copy of their compiled code, and refused to pay. You can split hairs all you want, someone with moral convictions calls this stealing. You took, you didn't pay. Doesn't matter if your action lightened the physical weight of a shelf or not, because that is not the only moral impact of theft. The real impact of theft is the lack of compensation paid to the person who created the product and requested the compensation which you refused, despite having the product. The sense of entitlement that you would lay claim to something which does not feed you, clothe you, or provide you shelter is at best disrespectful of your fellow human being and selfish. It doesn't matter what you think of their requested compensation. By using their software and refusing to compensate them you are also shooting yourself in the foot. If you can't afford it, you should be contributing to similar open source efforts by utilizing the open source software at all times and contributing new code when you find it incapable of meeting your desires. If you believe you have a moral high ground, you have to actually take it.

  • NyrNyr Community Contributor, Veteran

    @jarland said:

    Wow. I don't want to continue this conversation and much less to go personal on that.

    I am pretty happy with my moral convictions and I may not trow large bills at that one big corporation in particular, but I try to make my time in this world worth it, for me and for the people around me.

    And to be honest, I think my money is better spent going out with a friend who needs me and buying beers for him rather than paying Adobe four times the minimum salary in my country just so I can fix red eyes on Christmas photos.

    If you think that makes me a bad guy... well, that's your opinion.

    Thanked by 1wrox
  • DomainBopDomainBop Member
    edited November 2013

    @jarland said "So it's not immoral to take someone else's hard work and not compensate them as they requested? You have some right to what they made?

    It's the moral equivalent to stealing and I don't care what you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night.

    The product IS the copy. That is what they are selling, digital copies. You took a copy and didn't pay their requested compensation. Therefore you took the product, that product being a copy of their compiled code, and refused to pay. "

    That doesn't just apply to software. It also applies to illegal music downloads. The average musician (even the majority of ones who are signed to major labels) doesn't make much money and is struggling to get by and when you download a copy of their songs without paying you are taking money out of their mouths. Illegal downloads of someone's creative work doesn't just hurt big corporations, it also hurts many little guys.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    @DomainBop said:
    That doesn't just apply to software. It also applies to illegal music downloads. The average musician (even the majority of ones who are signed to major labels) doesn't make much money and is struggling to get by and when you download a copy of their songs without paying you are taking money out of their mouths. Illegal downloads of someone's creative work doesn't just hurt big corporations, it also hurts many little guys.

    It's something that took several years for me to fully understand. When I was younger I thought that because I wanted it, I deserved it, and anyone standing in my way was the jerk. It's certainly more expensive to pay for it all now but I haven't downloaded a song I didn't pay for (or wasn't given by the license holder) in quite a few years now. Things like spotify or rdio helped in the most recent years. Growing up is a big wake up call, to acknowledge every point where you've been selfish in the past and should've been thinking about others.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    @Nyr said:
    If you think that makes me a bad guy... well, that's your opinion.

    It does. Sorry if you don't like it. You can do it without photoshop and you don't have a basic human right to remove red eye with someone's software that they asked money for and you refused to pay. You won't justify this to anyone but yourself and similarly selfish individuals. I like you, you know this isn't personal, it's reality. I would say the same words to my own mother who I love dearly.

  • jarland said: You can do it without photoshop and you don't have a basic human right to remove red eye with someone's software that they asked money for and you refused to pay.

    No one in this world actually has a right to make money off their hard work either, really.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    They have a right to ask for it and a right to lay claim to their own work. To live in any civilized way it stands to reason that we must respect each other enough to allow each other the opportunity for their own dreams so long as those dreams do not infringe upon the rights of someone else to seek their own opportunities. Laziness (as indicated by a lack of willingness to learn to program your own software) is not a justification for disrespecting the requests of a fellow human surrounding their own creations.

  • Adobe and others should adopt the same principle as the developer of Universe Sandbox: lower prices on countries with less money. If someone can't pay for you the price that you ask, help them lowering the price of your product in a per case scenario (even if you need to only maintain the minimum that you need to not took a little loss).

    Free software for schools and universities.

    Everyone will be happy and the loss with be little to nothing.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    @EkaatyLinux said:
    Adobe and others should adopt the same principle as the developer of Universe Sandbox: lower prices on countries with less money. If someone can't pay for you the price that you ask, help them lowering the price of your product in a per case scenario (even if you need to only maintain the minimum that you need to not took a little loss).

    Free software for schools and universities.

    Everyone will be happy and the loss with be little to nothing.

    Honestly I think it would be far more awesome if everyone who wanted Photoshop and couldn't afford it would instead contribute what they could to the GIMP project or another project. Instead so many just seem content with pirating that which isn't meeting their needs (in relation to cost) and ignoring that which is not receiving enough attention from the people who could benefit from it's continued progression. Sort of a lose-lose scenario.

  • @jarland said:
    Honestly I think it would be far more awesome if everyone who wanted Photoshop and couldn't afford it would instead contribute what they could to the GIMP project or another project. Instead so many just seem content with pirating that which isn't meeting their needs (in relation to cost) and ignoring that which is not receiving enough attention from the people who could benefit from it's continued progression. Sort of a lose-lose scenario.

    It's a win for Adobe however, Adobe has always taken a soft approach towards piracy since, for them, it is largely a path to market dominance. They know people who "acquire" Photoshop and others for personal use will be more likely to become hooked on them and prefer them in a professional setting over their competitor's products.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    True true. Reminds me of an Apple event surrounding Final Cut Pro where they joked about how there were more attendees than license holders. They never much cared, because it helped their market position. Just wish more people would support open source projects instead of spend their time wishing and taking that they didn't buy. I don't do a lot to support open source, but I do buy a lot.

  • DroidzoneDroidzone Member
    edited November 2013

    @jarland said:
    True true. Reminds me of an Apple event surrounding Final Cut Pro where they joked about how there were more attendees than license holders. They never much cared, because it helped their market position. Just wish more people would support open source projects instead of spend their time wishing and taking that they didn't buy. I don't do a lot to support open source, but I do buy a lot.

    The same logic was applied on a larger scale by Microsoft, who released Windows 8 as an upgrade to Windows 7 at a very cheap price-Rs 700 (Rs 60=$1), compared to what they usually release it at-Rs 8000. Apparently the release had a "glitch" in that even someone with a pirated version of Windows 7 could upgrade to their latest 'masterpiece' without having an original older version key. It was so well received in the developing world that within a week, Microsoft was estimated to have made sales at least 2000 times what they usually did. The glitch didn't happen to users in the developed world however, and in response to "widespread outrage", Microsoft gradually "rectified it". But as a result, people who had previously never purchased a genuine copy of Windows (including me) ended up buying one at a cost that was actually affordable. Anyone with sufficient intelligence can understand that it was a conceived glitch. As a result, Microsoft Windows 8 now runs on around 70% of computers which previously was running a pirated product (my own estimate, depending on interaction with friends, coworkers and online forums).

    I can't argue about moral rights of developers. I dont disagree that creative artists have a right to compensation for their work. However, it's a fact that people will buy only software that's affordable to them. You can't stop piracy in the less developed nations by being strict in enforcement of license. You need to actually plan something that's attuned to their economy. As to it being wrong to use something without a license, you're quite right-it feels morally wrong for people to whom the cost involved is peanuts. However the moral decision for the less fortunate is determined by three choices - to use the software as a licensed product (which is impossible given the fact that a copy of Adobe Photoshop costs as much as a second hand car), to forego usage and try to use a cheaper and less functional product on the basis of moral considerations towards a strong armed corporate, who can't afford to consider the economics of the third world, or to use a cheaper or free alternative in the form of a non genuine software which has no support.

    Given the amount of forum posts on community support portals and the number of seeds on torrents of these software, you can understand how the decision making process currently stands, and whether the majority of individuals use a free or licensed version. Morality decides whether I give alms to the poor or the destitute, whether I do good deeds for Christmas. It doesn't govern my decision making process with regard to paying a corporate 20 times the value of a product. If the software in consideration was something I required for work, and from the use of which, I was making money , I'd pay up. However as it is something that I use very infrequently to touch up my family photos, or to edit a photo on my blog, nope, I won't be paying my monthly salary to buy it.

    That said, I continue to buy genuine versions of all the Android apps on my phone, just because it's affordable, actually worth the cost, and the individual developers who created it deserve the money for their hard work. That's what my morality dictates. I also contribute to the Android kernel (GPL) as a developer on XDA, also used to create roms for a couple of phones. I don't charge for my work, but have a donation link on my blog. I also report bugs on and submit patches for open source software that I use. That's how I contribute to the open source community.

  • Well, i think this thread went to the wrong direction. :p

  • @EkaatyLinux said:
    Adobe and others should adopt the same principle as the developer of Universe Sandbox: lower prices on countries with less money. If someone can't pay for you the price that you ask, help them lowering the price of your product in a per case scenario (even if you need to only maintain the minimum that you need to not took a little loss).

    Free software for schools and universities.

    Everyone will be happy and the loss with be little to nothing.

    +1

    @jarland even someone like me with a good income here in my country can't pay that prices

    But I do not say that it is my right to steal this guys hard work I know it is wrong

    But I try to find a good ways (legal ones) ways for example movies I watch it on Netflix and Hulu instead of downloading it and I try to use open source programs (but still not easy for me :D )

Sign In or Register to comment.