Two pieces of good news lately. Well, I'd not consider death of people
earlier, pirates or not, a good thing, but at least the world is showing
some intestinal fortitude. First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
the spirit, and not the letter of the law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/19/pirate.attack.foiled/index.html

Curiously, the legal situations are similar as well, as there is a legal
vacuum about piracy on and off the seas, which will eventually get filled as
pirates mess with the "wrong" people and wills are tested.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

  What I find disturbing about that is that the damages are awarded to
entertainment companies, not to software companies, even though pirate
bay distributes as much illegal software as illegal music/movies.

  From the point of view of piracy, software is in a similar position
as music: It's easy to copy, and people copy it a lot without a second
thought.

  However, software is only namely protected by law. There are no
institutions a la RIAA to protect the rights of software authors, to
lobby governments into passing draconian laws protecting software, to
extort people money for downloading illegal software. Cases of people
getting sued and/or fined because of music piracy outweight similar cases
of software piracy at least 100/1 (in the US probably 10000/1).

  This pirate bay case follows the same pattern: The admins of the biggest
online piracy community gets fined. Who gets the money? Music companies.

  As a software developer this grinds my gears.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> the spirit, and not the letter of the law:

I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they 
aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame) 
and have the legislature clarify the situation.  As it stands, nobody can 
really be sure now whether it's safe to run a search engine without 
massively lawyering up first.

People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent server 
because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually distributing 
something copyrighted.

> I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:

I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent server 
> because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually distributing 
> something copyrighted.

  Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 20.04.2009 19:03, Warp nous fit lire :
>   Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)
> 
Hey, if it's a RIAA copyrighted original CD, it *must* be good, right ?

(no, sincerely, I got it Warp, just too funny to resist)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49ecaa1a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> > the spirit, and not the letter of the law:

> I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
> aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
> and have the legislature clarify the situation.

What more clarification is needed when their raison d'etre is openly and
publicly stated as to facilitate media and software piracy? They are called
"the PIRATE bay". Almost all their traffic is targeted towards piracy. What
clarification do you need?

Sometimes, the law needs to stop playing dumb and recognize that if it
smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that it is indeed
a duck without needing gazillions of DNA analyses.

> As it stands, nobody can
> really be sure now whether it's safe to run a search engine without
> massively lawyering up first.

I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.

> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
server
> because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
distributing
> something copyrighted.

There are recourses for mistakes within the confines of legal system. If
RIAA does that, *THEN* they can be counter sued for damages. That's what the
courts are for. The possibility of mistakes is never an excuse for not
taking positive action. Or else, we would never give scalpels to doctors.
What if they don't bother to check if what they are severing is the aorta or
not? Sure, let's all sit on our hands because anything we can do can lead to
mistakes or abuses. Right.

> > I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:

> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

Two wrongs do not make a right. And even if intentions are noble at the
beginning (doubtful), money corrupts. It's romanticly appealing to think the
pirates are acting on ideological grounds, but nobody extorting millions of
dollars will remain an idealist when they see the green.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

	The value of that article is that there is another side to this that
isn't reported and that people pretend don't exist. That they're
committing piracy is not really in dispute.

	If they were to commandeer ships involved in fishing in areas that are
supposed to be Somali waters, or ships dumping industrial wastes there,
I can see the point.

	I guess they're trying to claim that they're using the ransom money for
compensation (although I'd really like to see which fishermen who lost
their job are getting how much of that money), and perhaps they're
desperate, so I won't really judge too harshly as I may not have all the
info. However, it's just plain "wrong" in that they're punishing the
wrong folks.

	If my neighbor does something wrong, I shouldn't have to pay
compensation for his misdeeds simply because the law can't get hold of
him. I have friends and relatives living in countries where this happens
(illegally, of course). Some guy has a beef with the cable TV company
(perhaps what he considers an overpriced bill or whatever). He cancels
his account and then proceeds to steal the cable from his neighbor,
without asking him and disrupting his service. When confronted, he
simply says "I'm only taking what's rightfully mine - the cable company
owes me!". Examples like this abound - the law is pathetic at handling
this, and you usually give up or get some big guys to talk to the neighbor.

	To me, what the Somali pirates are doing sounds just like this.

-- 
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> I think it's a slippery slope. I'd rather see the case fail (since they
>> aren't distributing copyrighted information and the prosecution was lame)
>> and have the legislature clarify the situation.
> 
> What more clarification is needed when their raison d'etre is openly and
> publicly stated as to facilitate media and software piracy? They are called
> "the PIRATE bay". 

So, we convict people to jail based on what their company is named?

I guess that means the Pirate Party governmental party should all be put in 
jail too?

> Almost all their traffic is targeted towards piracy.

Had that been shown, sure. Nobody on the prosecution showed that, AFAIK.

Remember that both betamax and xerox fought the same battles.

> What clarification do you need?

AFAIK, they didn't do anything but run a tracker and a public search 
service. Granted, that's what Napster did too.

I think the clarification needs to be in the laws, not the court cases. I'm 
not saying it's right to pirate the stuff. I'm saying the law ought to be 
written in a way that makes clear what "contributory copyright infringement" 
means in an age where automation can contribute to copyright infringement 
without you even knowing it. How closely do you have to watch what people 
post to your server?

In the USA, we have the DMCA, which is pretty abusive, but it's *still* up 
to the copyright owners to tell the ISP that there's something copyrighted 
there. And if you police it yourself and miss some things, then you're in 
more trouble than if you don't police it at all.

> Sometimes, the law needs to stop playing dumb and recognize that if it
> smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that it is indeed
> a duck without needing gazillions of DNA analyses.

Sure. Looks like a terrorist, sounds like a terrorist, better lock him up!

> I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
> engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.

> There are recourses for mistakes within the confines of legal system.

Only if you have money and the RIAA didn't put you out of business before it 
goes to the courts. Remember Steve Jackson?  Phil Zimmerman?

>>> I wish Canadians could have done the same with captured pirates:
> 
>> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
>> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right. 

So, someone bombs your country, you shouldn't shoot back?

> And even if intentions are noble at the
> beginning (doubtful), money corrupts. It's romanticly appealing to think the
> pirates are acting on ideological grounds, but nobody extorting millions of
> dollars will remain an idealist when they see the green.

Agreed. I'm just thinking that it's much less black vs white than the media 
is portraying it, is all. I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I'm 
just pointing out that probably nobody has the whole story.

-- 
   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

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
> distributing something copyrighted.

Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions?  Cause 
that's copyrighted and legal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>> distributing something copyrighted.
> 
> Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions?  Cause 
> that's copyrighted and legal.

Obviously I meant to imply copyrighted by the RIAA, silly man.

-- 
   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

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:22:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>>> distributing something copyrighted.
>> 
>> Do you mean a torrent server distributing Linux distributions?  Cause
>> that's copyrighted and legal.
> 
> Obviously I meant to imply copyrighted by the RIAA, silly man.

I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I 
thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I 
> thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.

Now that you mention it, that's probably true. It's hard to understand what 
RIAA's legal involvement in the whole mess is, given the RIAA as such 
wouldn't seem to have any standing.

Of course, it's a different country with apparently much different copyright 
laws, so I have no idea how their legal system treats such things.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

It's unfortunate that this article on such a poignant topic is so poorly argued.
 If this were true, it would certainly warrant a closer look.  I'm unable to
find one, but does anyone know of a credible source on this, or is it just
allegations?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> First, kudos to the Swedish court for following
> the spirit, and not the letter of the law:

Unfortunately, there is plenty of the opposite going on, though you could argue
this follows neither:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:51:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't think the RIAA actually holds copyrights, though, do they?  I
>> thought the record labels and artists held the copyrights.
> 
> Now that you mention it, that's probably true. It's hard to understand
> what RIAA's legal involvement in the whole mess is, given the RIAA as
> such wouldn't seem to have any standing.

They represent a consortium of copyright holders, that much I know - but 
yeah, I don't think there's anything out there (other than their website) 
that they would hold a copyright on.

> Of course, it's a different country with apparently much different
> copyright laws, so I have no idea how their legal system treats such
> things.

Well, I don't know that RIAA was involved directly - IFPI was, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's all as clear-cut as the media might imply:
>> http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/
> 
> It's unfortunate that this article on such a poignant topic is so poorly argued.
>  If this were true, it would certainly warrant a closer look.  I'm unable to
> find one, but does anyone know of a credible source on this, or is it just
> allegations?

	In 2005, there were (at least) two articles in the BBC about this.
Here's the latter one, which corrects a claim made in the first, but
still states that the UN maintains that toxic dumping had occurred. It
does contradict a small bit of what Hari said (i.e. tsunami did not wash
such barrels ashore), but he's likely correct on the bigger issue of
dumping waste there. I don't have any source other than what he says
regarding the sickness...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4321044.stm

	I don't have anything for the illegal fishing.

	Good to be skeptical. Better to be consistently skeptical. ;-)

-- 
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4321044.stm

Even that lends a little more credibility to it.  This (*) sounds like the sort
of thing that's easy to exaggerate and dramatize, even if there is an
underlying truth to it.  That's rather upsetting.  Thanks for the source.

>  I don't have anything for the illegal fishing.

This might be a little less shocking, although hopefully they keep their
distance from (*).  I guess 3,025 km is plenty of coastline to work with.
Maybe too much.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

> I don't buy slippery slope arguments like this. Which legitimate search
> engine is being shut down by RIAA? It's a non-issue until it happens.

Google is already in deep with the RIAA over music videos (and music 
soundtracks) on YouTube.

Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up in 
search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a coffee-burnt 
American.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> (i.e. tsunami did not wash such barrels ashore)

  Sidetracking on the actual issue, but I can't resist...

  I would have hard time believing that a tsunami would wash *anything*
on the bottom of the sea ashore, especially heavy objects far away from
the shore. That's not how a tsunami works at all. If it did, then a
tsunami would destroy everything at the bottom of the sea over an enormous
area.

  When the famous recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean happened, there were
people *diving* in the middle of the sea, and nothing happened to them.
They barely even felt anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:49ed700c@news.povray.org...

> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up
in
> search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a coffee-burnt
> American.

Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the same
argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do". Well, if
you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it. *If* Google facilitates
piracy, they would be on the wrong. Conversely, there's nothing wrong to
demand from Google or other technology providers to minimize the potential
of their services being used to promote piracy, while fulfilling legitimate
needs. It can be done, and certainly by Google.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the same
> argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do". Well, if
> you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it.

  The same argument could be used to shut down the entire internet.

  How many % of the information transferred over the internet breaks
copyright laws? The internet is clearly facilitating the illegal distribution
of copyrighted material.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> *If* Google facilitates
> piracy,

What, you mean like how I can type "torrents" or "torrentz" into Google and 
it will give me a huge list of websites to try and find some pirate 
software?  Honestly, Google couldn't make it any easier for me (unless they 
actually searched the torrents too).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49eda299@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> > torrents. I don't buy the "it's just the technology" argument. It's the
same
> > argument that gun lobbyist use "guns don't kill people, people do".
Well, if
> > you facilitate a crime, you are partaking in it.

>   The same argument could be used to shut down the entire internet.

Now you are watering down the argument. Yes, "cars also kill people" too.
No, it's not the same thing.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up 
> in search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a 
> coffee-burnt American.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3ATorrent%2520Search%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcoop%2Fintl%2Fen-US%2Fimages%2Fcustom_search_sm.gif%3BLH%3A65%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23551a8b%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BDIV%3A%23cccccc%3B&adkw=AELymgWXEWUon9bjOI5pGt28x61HhkpeVSOpxZlWsb3wEhXtUJ0zmYciTEYqIgLL57CE7caI-MwiMMfjtQn8ES73dMwigmF3E7xC1I3lbmtlXpFZy62S4Yg&boostcse=0&q=lost&btnG=Search&cx=003849996876419856805%3Aerhhdbygrma


-- 
   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:
> Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> torrents. 

Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to 
distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to 
share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.

-- 
   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" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49eddf78$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Yes, so? As near as I can see, there's little to no legitimate use of
> > torrents.

> Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to
> distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to
> share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.

Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need. Don't know or care about
WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
distros. While a couple legitimate uses have been thrown in time to time for
variety, P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

Post a reply to this message

Le 22.04.2009 00:17, somebody nous fit lire :

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need. Don't know or care about
> WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
> distros. 

Your use of Internet does not constitute any valid data, nor a valid reference.
Ever heard of "Your Mileage May Vary" ?
Democracy is not about pushing your point of view and ruling. That was for absolute
king,
and only a few remains in the world today.

Your other statement about EU could be open to persecution in some countries. Hope you
like it too that way.

> While a couple legitimate uses have been thrown in time to time for
> variety, P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

That's an over-gross generalization, as is your sole purpose here.

Which one do you prefer, happy Canadian : Telus or Shaw ?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:17:44 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need

Just because you don't use it and don't see there is a need doesn't mean 
there isn't a need.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

I disagree.

> Don't know or care about WoW, but I've never needed torrent, 

Good for you.

> and I've downloaded several Linux distros. 

Yes? So?

 > P2P has always been about copyright infringement.

Actually, I'm pretty sure bittorrent was specifically developed for 
downloading game patches.  And if you go to the more general meaning of 
"P2P" rather than "the version of P2P I mean", then no, the majority of P2P 
hasn't been about copyright infringement. IM and email are both P2P 
applications, for example. I don't think "P2P has always been about 
copyright infringement" any more than search has always been about finding 
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

On 4/20/2009 11:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> Two wrongs do not make a right.

They did when we fought the Revolution.  Killing is wrong, but we boldly 
killed many innocent English soldiers in the name of the greater good.

As I understand it (and my understanding is admittedly limited), these 
"pirates" view themselves on Somalia's defenders.  Darren pointed out 
they call themselves the "Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia."  Does this 
sound like someone in it for the money?

Even if they are, it wouldn't be a new thing for revolutionaries to have 
a mercenary bent.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 3:30 AM, somebody wrote:
> "guns don't kill people, people do".

By the way, does anyone know where the quote "Guns don't kill people, 
*I* kill people!" is from? :)  I can't remember atm...

Anyway, it sounds like you have some very strong ideals.  Those are the 
kind that often clash with reality.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> Now you are watering down the argument. Yes, "cars also kill people" too.
> No, it's not the same thing.

Just out of curiosity, but why isn't it the same thing?

By the way, are you aware that through many different comparisons, 
doctors always come out more dangerous than gun owners?

http://www.naturalnews.com/021206.html

This site attempts to debunk the "myth," and still ends up showing 
doctors as being at least twelves times as deadly as gun owners!

Myself, I can safely say that if everyone who worked at the bank with me 
had a gun on them, we would definitely be safer (and we wouldn't worry 
about robberies the way we do now!).

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2009 3:17 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Darren New"<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote in message
>> Linux distros and World of Warcraft both use torrent technology to
>> distribute their stuff. Amazon supports it directly for stuff you want to
>> share without paying for all the bandwidth.  It *is* just a technology.
>
> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

Of course there's a need.  The need is for the conservation of 
bandwidth.  Just because your ISP doesn't send you a bill for every byte 
of traffic over their pipe, doesn't mean that bandwidth isn't costing 
someone something.

P2P filesharing (which, as others have pointed out, is distinct from P2P 
in general) is all about conserving bandwidth.  It doesn't care what 
information is being shared.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:35:47 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 4/21/2009 3:30 AM, somebody wrote:
>> "guns don't kill people, people do".
> 
> By the way, does anyone know where the quote "Guns don't kill people,
> *I* kill people!" is from? :)  I can't remember atm...
> 
> Anyway, it sounds like you have some very strong ideals.  Those are the
> kind that often clash with reality.

Eddie Izzard credits the NRA for that quote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Those few legitimate uses do not constitute a need.

Yes they do.

> Don't know or care about
> WoW, but I've never needed torrent, and I've downloaded several Linux
> distros.

Whoopeee for you :-)

I have mostly used torrents for downloading game demos.  Modern game demos 
are HUGE, and nobody seems to want to host them for free, or if they do the 
download speed is tiny.  Finding them as a torrent is easy, and then it 
usually uses up 100% of my bandwidth so the download is done in no time.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> People will bitch up a storm when the RIAA shuts down a Linux torrent
>> server because the RIAA didn't bother to check whether it was actually
>> distributing something copyrighted.
> 
>   Hey, if it's bittorrent, it *must* be illegal, right? ;)

The day someone puts up a FTP server full of copyrighted material, they'll
ban the FTP protocol too?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Imagine if Google started crawling torrent files too and these showed up
> in search results, the RIAA would be round there quicker than a
> coffee-burnt American.

http://google.com/search?q=filetype:torrent

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> *If* Google facilitates piracy, they would be on the wrong.

Do a Google search for: <some software> serial|keygen|crack...

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49ef5987@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > *If* Google facilitates piracy, they would be on the wrong.
>
> Do a Google search for: <some software> serial|keygen|crack...

Hmm, good point. Up until recently, it was hard to argue that that's
actively facilitating piracy. But I believe presently the technology and
power is there for Google to block indexing of known pirate sites. I think
inaction on their part currently is borderline, and if the software
companies had their act together, they could help fill the legislative
vacuum concerning such matters. A big part of this legislation should be
protecting those providers that implement such filters. That's why I think
the EU directive a couple of threads up would be a good idea to implement. I
think it's inevitable that Internet as a lawless zone won't last forever.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:30:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> But I believe presently the technology and power is there for Google to
> block indexing of known pirate sites

I disagree.

Dealing with sites that actively provide cracks/serial numbers/etc is 
like playing a game of whack-a-mole.

I actually have to - in my day job - deal with sites like this.  Not for 
software, but for test "braindumps".  Those braindumps are an illegal use 
of copyrighted material that is provided to the test-taker under a non-
disclosure (the candidate taking the exam must agree to the NDA prior to 
taking the exam).

We shut one down, and two pop up to replace it.  Often run by the same 
people, and often run out of the same country.

I get to meet with corporate lawyers next week to discuss how we approach 
this problem.

Solving the problem is not as easy as one might think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f128ee$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:30:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > But I believe presently the technology and power is there for Google to
> > block indexing of known pirate sites

> I disagree.
>
> Dealing with sites that actively provide cracks/serial numbers/etc is
> like playing a game of whack-a-mole.
>
> I actually have to - in my day job - deal with sites like this.  Not for
> software, but for test "braindumps".  Those braindumps are an illegal use
> of copyrighted material that is provided to the test-taker under a non-
> disclosure (the candidate taking the exam must agree to the NDA prior to
> taking the exam).
>
> We shut one down, and two pop up to replace it.  Often run by the same
> people, and often run out of the same country.
>
> I get to meet with corporate lawyers next week to discuss how we approach
> this problem.
>
> Solving the problem is not as easy as one might think.

I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse game,
much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors will always
be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't mean there is not a
definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the problem utterly and
completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you? Using a similar mix of
blacklisting and heuristics employed by anti-virus programs, players like
Google who both have the technology and the power can make a huge dent in
the problem. The locks on our doors won't stop all thieves either, but they
will discourage casual ones.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:39:32 -0600, somebody wrote:

> I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse
> game, much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors
> will always be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't
> mean there is not a definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the
> problem utterly and completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you?

For years, yeah, they did.  Because of the costs of constantly swinging 
the hammer on the mole's head.  But I feel we have to make an effort, and 
my management supports this now.

> Using a similar mix of blacklisting and heuristics employed by
> anti-virus programs, players like Google who both have the technology
> and the power can make a huge dent in the problem. The locks on our
> doors won't stop all thieves either, but they will discourage casual
> ones.

When Google starts doing that, and they start censoring legitimate 
content, then that also becomes bad.

The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very 
simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material, 
though, can lead people to illegal activities.

So should the guide be blocked from public access?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f1ed0e@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:39:32 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > I didn't mean to imply it was an easy problem. It's a cat and mouse
> > game, much the same as the malware problem where the malware authors
> > will always be one step ahead of anti-malware software. That doesn't
> > mean there is not a definite benefit, even if one cannot eradicate the
> > problem utterly and completely. In your case, you don't give up, do you?
>
> For years, yeah, they did.  Because of the costs of constantly swinging
> the hammer on the mole's head.  But I feel we have to make an effort, and
> my management supports this now.
>
> > Using a similar mix of blacklisting and heuristics employed by
> > anti-virus programs, players like Google who both have the technology
> > and the power can make a huge dent in the problem. The locks on our
> > doors won't stop all thieves either, but they will discourage casual
> > ones.

> When Google starts doing that, and they start censoring legitimate
> content, then that also becomes bad.
>
> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
> though, can lead people to illegal activities.
>
> So should the guide be blocked from public access?

Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
>> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
>> though, can lead people to illegal activities.
>>
>> So should the guide be blocked from public access?
> 
> Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

It is freely distributable copyrighted material.

Today it's legal.  There are some people (like those who passed the DMCA) 
who happen to think that the mechanisms that protect things should not be 
protected free speech.

Similarly, in some countries, it is legal to discuss, crack, and disclose 
the copy protection mechanisms in software.  The US isn't one of those 
places, but there are plenty of places where it is allowed.

You need to stop looking at these issue through US-centric eyes.  Either 
that or just flatly state that your opinion is not mutable, and we can 
all stop arguing with you and move on to something else.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f212c9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> The MIT Guide to Lockpicking teaches you how to open most locks very
> >> simply.  That is protected free speech.  The use of that material,
> >> though, can lead people to illegal activities.

> >> So should the guide be blocked from public access?

> > Is it a legal and freely distributable publication? If so, no.

> It is freely distributable copyrighted material.

Then, my answer is no. That was easy, wasn't it? See, internet isn't really
any different than "real life". If the "MIT Guide to Lockpicking" is freely
distributable IRL, same should go for the internet. The complication is the
borders, as you indicate below, but I suspect it's not an insurmountable
problem.

> Today it's legal.  There are some people (like those who passed the DMCA)
> who happen to think that the mechanisms that protect things should not be
> protected free speech.
>
> Similarly, in some countries, it is legal to discuss, crack, and disclose
> the copy protection mechanisms in software.  The US isn't one of those
> places, but there are plenty of places where it is allowed.

Does that make it viable as a sustainable model? Sure, Kyrgyzs (*) may not
care about whether cracking software hurts Autodesk or not - it's not their
intellectual property. But I'm pretty sure they would care if the shoe was
on the other foot. More importantly, from a developmental standpoint, they
won't be able to establish an Autodesk of their own until the laws change.

For the simple reason that I cannot see legalizing copyright infringement as
part of a viable economic model, I can claim it's wrong to legalize it. If
you care less about economy, more about morals, maybe you may find it's
wrong from a "golden rule" standpoint.

(*) I know nothing about copyright laws in Kyrgyzstan. I just singled them
out because their name is cool.

> You need to stop looking at these issue through US-centric eyes.

Ethical relativism is an absurd and meaningless proposition when its taken
to its nihilistic extreme of  "anything goes" and "all opinions are equally
valid". Ironically, ethical relativism itself is actually a western-centric
view.

So, *someone* is going to impose their views. Why would that someone be the
someone who wants a completely lawless internet rather than someone who
wants a highly controlled one? I don't subscribe to the notion that
lawlessness is de facto standard, that it's the natural state of things,
that it's the default.

> Either that or just flatly state that your opinion is not mutable,

I suspect that my opinion is no more or less mutable than yours. I have yet
to see a single person change his/her opinion during an online discussion in
the short history of internet. I'm not tempted the least bit to be the
first.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:13:23 -0600, somebody wrote:

> For the simple reason that I cannot see legalizing copyright
> infringement as part of a viable economic model, I can claim it's wrong
> to legalize it.

I am not advocating legalizing copyright infringement.  In fact I 
personally own copyrights.

But leaving p2p networking technologies in place is not "legalizing" 
anything.  You police what is shared, not the method by which it is 
shared.

Driving up to someone's house and delivering a package isn't inherently 
illegal.

Driving up to someone's house and delivering illegal drugs is.  But it's 
not the driving up and delivering that's illegal, it's the content that 
is being delivered that is illegal.

Or would you also advocate that people taking packages to other people's 
houses should also be made illegal?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49ee7615$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/21/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:

> By the way, are you aware that through many different comparisons,
> doctors always come out more dangerous than gun owners?

You convinced me. I'm going to see a gun owner if I get cancer. Ultimately,
though, I think funeral houses are the most dangerous place to be around.
Somebody's always been dead every single time I've been to one. Who can say
it won't be me next time? So I stopped going to funerals. I may just live
forever.

See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2009 6:09 PM, somebody wrote:
> See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

Faulty reasoning my a**, medical errors alone account for more deaths 
every year than gun handling errors.  And forget all that stuff about 
"you're already sick, so you're more likely to die."  I'm talking about 
cases where the death is directly the result of a mistake, not where you 
went to see a doctor and they couldn't cure you.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49f51b57$1@news.povray.org...
> On 4/26/2009 6:09 PM, somebody wrote:

> > See, I can use fawlty reasoning too...

> Faulty reasoning my a**, medical errors alone account for more deaths
> every year than gun handling errors.  And forget all that stuff about
> "you're already sick, so you're more likely to die."  I'm talking about
> cases where the death is directly the result of a mistake, not where you
> went to see a doctor and they couldn't cure you.

Isn't it a bit unfair to compare mistakes by gun owners to mistakes by
doctors? I mean after all, a mistake with a gun results in a miss or a
non-fatal wound by definition, while the only doctor who kills intentionally
that I can name is Dr Kevorkian.

Really, where do you get the numbers from? What constitutes a mistake? If a
cancer patient's life is extended for decades through administrations of
hundereds of medications, and if the last medication was to much or too
little, does that end up in the mistake column?

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2009 8:12 PM, somebody wrote:
> I mean after all, a mistake with a gun results in a miss or a
> non-fatal wound by definition, while the only doctor who kills intentionally
> that I can name is Dr Kevorkian.

?

A mistake by a gun-owner results in someone getting shot and possibly 
killed.
A mistake by a doctor results in someone getting hurt and possibly killed.

Compare the deaths from the two groups, and deaths from doctors are 
higher than deaths by gun owners.  The only mitigating factor I could 
possibly think of is that people see doctors more often than gun owners, 
so there are more opportunities to make mistakes overall.  I don't know 
the ratio of accidental deaths to visits, so that could make a difference.

The latest figures I saw (from a website trying to debunk the "myth," in 
fact!) were something like 16,000 killed in the US from guns, and 96,000 
by doctors.  Again, these are cases directly resulting in death due to 
medical error.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message