 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
