 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> Well given that piracy is illegal, it seems a legitimate target for the
> censors, but as with all these sort of schemes there will always be a way
> around them and new ways of pirating software will pop up. Just look what
> happened with Napster when it was shut down, up popped bitTorrent. If
> suddenly they start censoring all sites that link to torrents, then I'm 100%
> sure some new method will be invented that makes it impossible to censor
> using the existing scheme. By the time a new scheme is dreamt up to fight
> the pirates, another system will be in place, it's endless.
And western countries will become no better than China in their
totalitarian censorship policies...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> ...
>
> Software pirate mentality is one of the worst things that really grinds
> my gears. People who pirate software and have this kind of attitude are
> the worst moral scum on earth.
>
> --
> - Warp
>
Prior to this bit of hyperbole, you made a number of good points that I
generally agree with, but "the worst moral scum on earth"? Really? Good golly
gee willikers, man! (Sorry for the strong language, but my gears get a tad
asynchronous at times as well.) Do you realize that there are villains out
there doing things like breeding chihuahuas? …ON PURPOSE?
But seriously… I do refrain from swiping software and join you earnestly in
urging others do the same. I do, however, have a point of view that differs
rather radically from the perspective that sees “Good” software vendors in a
battle against “Evil” software pirates. In my mind, stealing software from the
great majority of vendors would bring me down to their moral level, which is
more than sufficient impetus to prevent me from doing so. (Some indie folks and
the like are notable exceptions.) A large company that starts with an actual
product in order to initiate commercial intercourse (pun intended) and then
adds on every sort of deception, misdirection, hidden restriction and
misleading condition that they can possibly imagine to get as deeply into the
customers’ pockets as possible is a fancier bunch of thieves than plain ol’
software pirates, but they are no less thieves in the moral sense.
I never have and, most likely, never will buy into the notion that having enough
wealth and power to renders one’s means of separating honest folks from their
money “technically legal” buy purchasing legislation in bulk renders one
morally upright. Agreed, stealing software pretty much makes one scum… but
just one more little patch of scum in the great scum ocean we call “information
technology”, the major currents of which flow from the moral effluent issued
forth by its corporate giants.
Hey, this hyperbole thing can get addictive, can’t it? ;-)
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> As somebody once said, "trying to make data not copiably is like trying
> to make water not wet".
No, it's like making money that's impossible to counterfeit.
Yes, it's really trivial to do that. What's hard is making money that
only one organization (i.e., the central bank) can counterfeit.
Making data that you can't decrypt is easy these days. Making data that
you can only decrypt in certain ways for certain purposes is hard.
Of course, it's still copyable. But the point of DRM is to make copying
useless, not impossible.
> Even assuming you somehow manage to do this (how long have guns been
> illegal in my country?)
Guns are easy to make. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Quite often with new software I YouTube for "<software> tutorial",
You Suck At Photoshop.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You Suck At Photoshop.
I know that. What's your point?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> You Suck At Photoshop.
>
> I know that. What's your point?
<eyeroll>
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And this is only if I'm not concentrating on anything. If I'm
> concentrating
> on something (eg. work or reading), the music is immensely distracting. It
> makes it very hard to concentrate. I need silence, please.
Since I *can't* get silence in my house, I prefer to add music on top.
If my mom is in the house, the radio is on; always. The washing machine is
also close enough to be super-annoying.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> And this is only if I'm not concentrating on anything. If I'm
>> concentrating
>> on something (eg. work or reading), the music is immensely
>> distracting. It
>> makes it very hard to concentrate. I need silence, please.
>
> I *like* music and even I agree with this...
I like to program with Bach on the background. In fact, music can also
be a wonderful firewall to noisy environments. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> If my mom is in the house, the radio is on; always.
I think I would go crazy if I had to live in a place where there's a
constant racket of music.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think I would go crazy if I had to live in a place where there's a
> constant racket of music.
That's the thing, the radio station she listens to is not music, mostly
news.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I think I would go crazy if I had to live in a place where there's a
> > constant racket of music.
> That's the thing, the radio station she listens to is not music, mostly
> news.
Not a lot better...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> I think I would go crazy if I had to live in a place where there's a
>>> constant racket of music.
>
>> That's the thing, the radio station she listens to is not music, mostly
>> news.
>
> Not a lot better...
Worse, for me. I can ignore music. It's very hard for me to ignore talking.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > I think I would go crazy if I had to live in a place where there's a
>> > constant racket of music.
>
>> That's the thing, the radio station she listens to is not music, mostly
>> news.
>
> Not a lot better...
Not at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> All this talk of Vista, followed by me installing Steam on my new PC,
>> got me wondering if the Steam activation had ever been cracked (since
>> Vista activation is cracked via backdoors MS intentionally left in
>> which aren't really needed for Steam to work well). So I google
>> around, just out of curiousity, and come across
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rIw1HUfrU
>>
>> Now, how lame is this? Three minutes of video, with music, to convey
>> six sentences of text? Damn, guys, get a geocities web site or
>> something.
>
> i wonder how long it took them to upload their video
>
I wonder how many valid accounts they phished with their video.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> All this talk of Vista, followed by me installing Steam on my new PC,
> got me wondering if the Steam activation had ever been cracked (since
> Vista activation is cracked via backdoors MS intentionally left in which
> aren't really needed for Steam to work well). So I google around, just
> out of curiousity, and come across
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rIw1HUfrU
>
> Now, how lame is this? Three minutes of video, with music, to convey six
> sentences of text? Damn, guys, get a geocities web site or something.
I'm stunned.
I keep hoping that the kids trying to pirate games would know their
technology. Fact is, they possess no more clue then anyone falling for 419s.
I really needed a good laugh, thanks Darren.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> I wonder how many valid accounts they phished with their video.
Reminds me a bit of this:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Go-Phish.aspx
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I wonder how many valid accounts they phished with their video.
You know, I never noticed that. (Of course, I had no intention of
following the instructions so...)
I *did* kind of wonder at the "you can only get five games per one you
own." I thought it was kind of dumb for Valve to have left open to
public email the game authorization mechanism.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:19:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Software pirate mentality is one of the worst things that really
> grinds
> my gears. People who pirate software and have this kind of attitude are
> the worst moral scum on earth.
Uh, no, I think you'll find that people who think it's appropriate to
bomb innocent civilians are the worst moral scum on earth.
Let's have some perspective, please.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:35:22 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Soon we will live in a world where pirated music and movies are the
> *only* way to get them to work properly without having to spend enormous
> amounts of money on expensive hardware which might still not guarantee
> that you can get them to work properly.
>
> The naive theoretical idea behind DRM is that if you are a honest
> paying
> customer, you don't even notice it's there. Only if you try to copy it
> illegally you will stumble accross its obstacles. In practice it's often
> almost the opposite.
Yep, agreed there. We just picked up a copy of "The Mummy Returns" from
our local secondhand DVD store. It comes with a digital copy on disc 2,
which must be activated by June 8, 2009.
You have to be running Windows XP or Windows Vista in order to actually
view it. Requires WMP10 in order to watch it, and is DRM-encumbered.
Nice idea, but of course using Linux, totally useless to me.
Fortunately, I can use k9copy to rip a copy of the video on disc 1, don't
have to deal with DRM issues or platform lock-in, and I can move the file
to my laptop if I'm taking a trip or view it on my desktop if I like,
rather than being tied to the "only usable on 1 PC" built into the DRM
software.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:54:33 +0100, scott wrote:
> Just look what
> happened with Napster when it was shut down, up popped bitTorrent.
IKWYM, but LimeWire popped up; BitTorrent is a transfer protocol, bit
different than Napster or Limewire....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:07:47 -0500, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> Well given that piracy is illegal, it seems a legitimate target for the
>> censors, but as with all these sort of schemes there will always be a
>> way around them and new ways of pirating software will pop up. Just
>> look what happened with Napster when it was shut down, up popped
>> bitTorrent. If suddenly they start censoring all sites that link to
>> torrents, then I'm 100% sure some new method will be invented that
>> makes it impossible to censor using the existing scheme. By the time a
>> new scheme is dreamt up to fight the pirates, another system will be in
>> place, it's endless.
>
> And western countries will become no better than China in their
> totalitarian censorship policies...
Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
against your government without risking your life". Again, let's get
some perspective, please.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> IKWYM, but LimeWire popped up; BitTorrent is a transfer protocol, bit
> different than Napster or Limewire....
Blocking BitTorrent is really stupid. If someone sets a FTP server with lots
of pirated material, they'll block FTP? It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:07:20 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> IKWYM, but LimeWire popped up; BitTorrent is a transfer protocol, bit
>> different than Napster or Limewire....
>
> Blocking BitTorrent is really stupid. If someone sets a FTP server with
> lots of pirated material, they'll block FTP? It's a damned PROTOCOL. It
> can't be illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
Yep, agreed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
> post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
> against your government without risking your life". Again, let's get
> some perspective, please.
Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
which in many cases is effectively almost as bad as risking your life.
You know, there are certain issues which are becoming more and more
a taboo, and which are overriding freedom of speech. Not too unlike what
has happened in China where, for example, speaking about the Tiananmen
Square events is taboo and will get you fined or jailed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
Happens in a lot of countries already regarding certain events during the
war - doesn't seem to affect anyone apart from the people wanting to cause
trouble for the sake of it. Is that a problem for you?
Hey, you can even cause massive disruption by protesting against your
government, yet they do nothing, no fine, no arrests, no attempt to even
stop the disruption. *That's* ludicrous IMO.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> IKWYM, but LimeWire popped up; BitTorrent is a transfer protocol, bit
>> different than Napster or Limewire....
What I meant was BitTorrent suddenly became hugely popular for sharing
pirated files, since people were unable to use Napster to share pirated
files.
> It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Software pirate mentality is one of the worst things that really
>> grinds
>> my gears. People who pirate software and have this kind of attitude are
>> the worst moral scum on earth.
>
> Uh, no, I think you'll find that people who think it's appropriate to
> bomb innocent civilians are the worst moral scum on earth.
>
> Let's have some perspective, please.
Exactly. The worst consequences of pirating are companies going bankrupt,
there are many many crimes with far worse consequences. Even driving at
50mph in a 30mph limit past a school is worse IMO. Would you rather you
lost your job or your child?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Blocking BitTorrent is really stupid. If someone sets a FTP server with lots
> of pirated material, they'll block FTP? It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
I would hazard a guess that blocking BitTorrent is *infeasible* too.
It's not like it runs on a Well Known Port. It will run on any damned
port you like!
Personally, I use BitTorrent all the time - and AFAIK I've never used it
for anything illegal...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
>> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
>
> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I would hazard a guess that blocking BitTorrent is *infeasible* too.
> It's not like it runs on a Well Known Port. It will run on any damned
> port you like!
Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the protocol.
So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
can't tell it apart from online banking :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> > your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> Happens in a lot of countries already regarding certain events during the
> war - doesn't seem to affect anyone apart from the people wanting to cause
> trouble for the sake of it. Is that a problem for you?
You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
enough.
People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
their opinion *without* causing any trouble. It's getting worse by the day.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I would hazard a guess that blocking BitTorrent is *infeasible* too.
>> It's not like it runs on a Well Known Port. It will run on any damned
>> port you like!
>
> Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the protocol.
Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
Traffic analysis, anyone?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>
> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>
> Traffic analysis, anyone?
Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise a
few eyebrows.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>
>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>
>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>
> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise a
> few eyebrows.
Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
*slightly* suspicious...
Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> enough.
You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
> People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
Care to give any examples?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and
>>>> they
>>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>>
>>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>>
>>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>>
>> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise
>> a few eyebrows.
>
> Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
> Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
> *slightly* suspicious...
>
> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
> transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
> concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any
>> network transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block
>> any concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
>
> Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
> certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
Yeah, I've heard of such things.
Of course, no ISP can truly offer an "unlimited" Internet access
package. The difference is that some of them will *tell* you what the
limit is, and others will make it up as they go along...
(If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow.
If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
pockets...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow. If
> the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
> pockets...)
For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me as
there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
I was under the impression the original Bit Torrent paper was somebody's
final year project or something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to
>> follow. If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits
>> their pockets...)
>
> For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
> that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me
> as there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
If all the ISPs say in the T&C what they're actually going to do, you
can shop around and find the one that's acceptable to you. I don't see
anything wrong with that.
I think that having a "hidden" cap that they don't warn you about to be
a rather unfair concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> > speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> > enough.
> You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
> the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
> official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
> anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
> somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
You don't get the point. The point is that freedom of speech is more
limited now than it was eg. 20 years ago. And it's getting more and more
limited as time passes.
And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
*expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing. Today
expressing certain types of opinions is so taboo that even law enforcement
is trying to stop these thought crimes.
> > People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> > their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
> Care to give any examples?
A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other things,
official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
words which some people consider derogatory (although whether they really
are or not is completely subjective and there's no official stance). He
was sued and fined, and forced to take the article off his blog.
(Having read the trial logs, the trial was more or less a farce. The
judge was astonishingly biased and basically ignored everything the defence
attorney and the suspect told.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Napster closed down: July 2001.
BitTorrent paper released: April 2001.
First BT implementation released: 2 July 2001.
So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
illegally copy stuff?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hey, you can even cause massive disruption by protesting against your
> government, yet they do nothing, no fine, no arrests, no attempt to even
> stop the disruption. *That's* ludicrous IMO.
Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the
>> protocol.
>
> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
>> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
>
> Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.
Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
different ISP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
> illegally copy stuff?
Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
nature 101.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
Disrupting traffic gets you in trouble for disrupting traffic, not for
protesting.
Unfortunately, I think a great number of on-the-street level cops are
taking their clues from the high administrations and simply ignoring the
law and misusing their privileges.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
>>> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And killing is very often legal. We call it hunting. Or being a soldier.
And, indeed, most of the guns not used for hunting or soldiering aren't
made for killing, but for intimidating.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
Unfortunately, choice is rather limited in most places, due to
government interference.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
