 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>>> Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market works
> on
>> Never said nor implied that it was.
>
>> Companies try to market the result of artwork. They're free to change
>> their business model to survive.
>
> Something like: If I steal your car, you are free to ride a bike to work.
Something like: If my car gets stolen, I get to take your money to
make up for it.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>>> Do you blame the actual criminals at all?
>
>> For forcing me to pay extra? Not at all. If their crimes were so
>> serious that the welfare of the society were seriously at stake,
>
> Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
> society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
False dichotomy.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pan wrote:
> Easy enough to ignore a supposed point founded on a shaky supposition
> that
> pirate bay has been "taken down".
I admit I was sloppy in phrasing it that way. Clearly the owners of the
Pirate Bay got in lots of trouble and lost the lawsuit against them after
spending much money.
Whether it's appealed is pretty irrelevant to the point of whether it serves
as a chilling effect on others.
"Taken down" is American slang for "being arrested and convicted", you see.
As in, "you're going down, expletive!"
> Your light got smothered by a bushel of
> wishful thinking.
Huh?
> (You would agree that you are blatantly against the tenets and
> operations of priate bay, eh?)
Um, no? I think copyright law is screwed up nowadays, given digital copying
and given active content (e.g., software that enforces its own licenses).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Curious, do you feel the same way about movies?
I will say that after moving to California it was kind of surreal the first
few years. There's a lot of politics about movie making and such, with laws
passed about how many American actors you have to hire if you're filming
abroad and stuff like that. Like movies are actually important.
It's the economics, of course, but I imagine it's the same sort of thing way
back when people would say "Nice game machine, but is it PC compatible?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Your light got smothered by a bushel of wishful thinking.
>
> Huh?
I think what Darren means to ask is whether pan meant an imperial
bushel or a US bushel.<G>
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 2:11 AM, scott wrote:
>> The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
>> downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
>> crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
>> money.
>
> It's not the music industry's fault that the software industry does not
> go after illegal software as vigorously. There's nothing stopping
> Microsoft or similar other software giants trying to take the same route
> as the music industry. I wonder why they don't?
Haven't you heard of the Business Software Alliance? Basically the same
thing for MS software, except they use more heavy handed strategy (ie,
things like showing up at your business and threatening you if you don't
let them inspect all your computers to verify you aren't stealing software).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> You're changing the subject. Surveillance (sic) does not interfere in
>> a person's activity and is itself a passive activity. Packet filtering
>> interferes with legitimate traffic and is not a passive activity.
>
> How so? I use spam filtering and while spams indeed get filtered out,
> legitimate content just passes through. Active/passive activity
> distinction is arbitrary. Everything is "active" on the internet,
> otherwise packets never will go from one point to another.
If you don't know the difference between packet filtering and spam
filtering, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the use of these
technologies.
>> >> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
>
>> > There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard
>> > for people to violate the law.
>
>> While we're at it, let's make it illegal to use photocopiers and
>> scanners, lord knows those are used for illegal activities.
>
> Glad you brought it up, you are only helping my case. See, commercial
> copiers already have "active" filters in them, and will block and even
> lock up when trying to copy currency. That's a very "active" measure
Not all of them do.
However, what you're proposing by saying "block all P2P traffic" isn't
the same as this type of technology in copiers. Your proposal would be
analogous to saying "let's remove the copying circuitry from copies".
> taken to *prevent* a crime, and it's a good one, IMO. Google "Eurion
> Constellation", for instance.
I'm quite aware of it. I've actually been responsible for implementing
it. That is a measure to prevent copying of specific documents, not the
copying of all documents.
> Sure, it will only deter amateurs with bad
> judgement, but like I said above, there's no single easy solution to
> combatting piracy. I lock my door every day, even though it would take a
> professional 5 seconds to unlock it. You *have* to make it hard to break
> the law.
>
>> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
>
> Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's a
> very silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.
Not silly at all.
You are proposing restricting a technology because it *may* be used for
copying copyrighted content, IOW, it may be used to break the law.
If that's the threshold that you think is reasonable, then we should
apply it consistently across all aspects of our lives. Violating
copyright is a crime, certainly, but compared to the deaths caused by
illegal uses of automobiles, it seems reasonable (using your own logic)
to say "hey, we can save lots of lives by outlawing cars" and making that
happen, too.
Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:50:29 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> I can blame them for making me pay for other people's crimes. I can
>> also blame lawmakers, but that's a different story.
>
> Do you blame the actual criminals at all?
It seems you don't, as you want to punish the law-abiding users along
with the criminals, rather than hold the criminals responsible for their
own actions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> I still don't understand how that would protect the owners of the search
> engine from litigation.
It probably wouldn't, but it might help. Just like it helps having P2P
instead of centralized warez sites helps prevent the copyright owners from
taking stuff offline.
> If a user can get a pointer to get some illegal
> content, the party that provided the pointer can be found liable,
Well, sure. The owners would have to not blatantly acknowledge that they're
helping distribute copyrighted files.
The benefit is that if someone comes and confiscates your servers, there's
zero information on the server that would say any of the links are to
copyrighted material. It would be like a site full of tinyurl URLs getting
sued for pointing at copyrighted information.
> least if they didn't show due diligence in cleaning up their
> index/tracker/whatever.
And how would you do that, without downloading every torrent posted to your
own server without
> How would your system work in practice (from a
> user point of view) ?
I'm guessing you could make it look a lot like bittorrent does right now.
For example, the protocol could be changed that if you include a file called
README or MANIFEST or some such, that file gets hashed into a bloom filter
and the result is tacked onto the .torrent file. (You'd probably have to
take the file names *out* of the .torrent file and put it into a file inside
the torrent data itself.)
When you wanted to do a search, you put in your search terms, your *client*
generates a bloom filter, sends it to the search server, which looks thru
its torrents to find matching ones, and sends the matching torrents back to
you. The client would then connect to each such torrent, download the
README/MANIFEST/whatever file, make sure the bloom match worked, and if so,
show it to you and ask if you want to download the rest of the stream.
The server, in the meantime, shouldn't return too many search results, to
prevent attackers from doing offline searches of the bloom filters. I.e.,
the server needs to make sure there are significant amounts of search text
(as in, enough bits set to imply s sufficiently long search string that
you're unlikely to get too many false positives) in the incoming filters.
Of course it's not going to be complete protection. It's another layer of
plausible deniability just like DHT is. The only good solution is a good
distributed search algorithm. Bloom filters just make it possible to do a
full-text search without any party knowing what you're searching in or what
you're searching for.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Wasn't Google/YouTube forced to actually search for illegal material and
> remove it from search results?
Not to my knowledge. I think they did that because their business model made
it worthwhile. E.g., it's unlikely the studios would let youtube serve music
videos if the studios didn't convince youtube to look for copyrighted
material also.
It's not like google obeys copyright laws, let alone "illegal" material.
It's just that few people call them on it.
> What's to stop the same being enforced
> on any bitTorrent search site with your scheme?
As far as I know, the DMCA in the USA doesn't require someone to actively
look for copyrighted material. You just have to take it down when you get a
letter.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't try to sue the folks who
implemented the DHT subsystem of bittorrent also. It seems to me that was
clearly done to get around the problem of trackers being taken offline by
legal means.
> It seems to me the technicalities of how the search is done is not going
> to matter, if it seems like any site is returning lots of links to
> illegal files (no matter how contrived the link process is) then they
> will be forced to remove the links or shut down.
Possibly. You'd have a far harder time proving it, tho, if the site itself
didn't serve up the descriptions of what the links point to.
Decentralized searching will take care of that, I think. There's no reason
why the .torrent files themselves can't be distributed across all the peers
in the DHT for searching. Then you would actually have to prosecute those
actually doing the sharing. If you have a decentralized repository of bloom
filters migrating around a DHT as machines come and go, I think it would be
difficult to blame someone for serving up links to copyrighted information
they literally can't know about.
Plus, if your encryption is good, you'd have a hard time looking at even a
peer's machine and finding the copyrighted information.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
