 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
> news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>>> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
>>>> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
>>>> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
>>>> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
>>> they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders.
> Hence
>>> the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
>>> same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
>>> because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.
>> I also, BTW, find it amusing that you invoke "free market" in one
>> message on the issue, and then seem to think little of them using the
>> government to get what they want.
>
> 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. They've fought it in the past, lost the
fight, changed their model, and all signs indicate that they made more
profit as a result.
They'll do the same here. They've already begun to.
What irritates people is the attempts to tax goods is simply an attempt
to get innocent people to fork over money to them because of claimed
losses due to a business model they refuse to change. Then they'll
change it - and reap the benefits of both. It's simply an attempt to
accumulate more wealth.
What also irritates some is that likely, the artists aren't getting any
of the money that people are paying fines for. (Too lazy to look it up
in detail, but this came straight from the mouth of an artist) The whole
idea was to recuperate amount lost in sales, wasn't it? And artists get
paid a percentage of the sales of each album they sell. So why aren't
they getting any of that money?
The claim is always "losing sales". The evidence and the distribution
of the money they "reclaim" suggests otherwise.
The specifics of the notions behind copyright are *not* universally
applicable throughout all times, and are quite related to technology. As
such, technology can and does change what is considered acceptable.
Copyright's main purpose is to promote the production of artistic
material. The financial aspect is merely a means to maintain that
promotion - not an end in itself. Once copyright law exceeds that goal
it has exceeded its bounds. I can't see a good reason for a law that
guarantees one can profit from something one created 70 years ago, for
example. 10? 20? Maybe even 30. But 70? Nope. Certainly not an argument
to support the promotion of arts. If anything, having such a long
lifetime discourages artists from producing more work.
As I said - copyright is not by any means a human right. It has become
a government enforced privilege - and unlike driving licenses, it is a
privilege that has gone well beyond its benefits.
And once you greatly exceed any bounds, you'll create the outlaws that
exist. You advocate the erosion of others' freedoms to go after the
outlaws. I advocate a revamping of the laws because they don't seem to
support the reasons those laws existed to begin with.
I just can't see an argument supporting taxing others, and passing laws
that interfere with how other people live, over excessive rights for
which there's no reason certain people have. If you can't enforce those
rights without encumbering the majority, it's a sign that those rights
are questionable.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
Do surveillance cameras impede my movement and ensure I buy only
certain items?
>> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
>
> There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard for
Which could be a hint that the problem may not be what you think it is.
Copyright is not a human right, you know.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> I suppose you'd be OK with a tax on all printers, their accessories,
>> and all paper because of book piracy?
>
> I don't know how widespread that is, but if so, yes, such a levy might be
> deemed necessary. Again, it would be undesirable of course, since legitimate
I must say I wouldn't.
> users would be put into the position of subsidizing pirates. That's why
> legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering, prosecuting
> uploaders as well as downloaders... etc, if they know what's good for them.
You're advocating losing certain freedoms to save a few bucks? I can
easily see lots of legitimate users disagreeing with you. It's not like
you're advocating a solution that has no harm. And certainly, it's like
a false dichotomy. Why can't legitimate users just say "Go after the
criminals, and if not feasible, then too bad."?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4a060b30$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
> It's
>
>> 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?
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, I'd
understand. As it is, their crimes are against an obsolete business
model. Those behind the model may have legitimate complaints, but I see
no reason why I should make up for their losses.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> How about just a general statewide tax for all the products that
>> normally get pilfered in stores?
>
> Law abiding customers already pay for that with their bills, in terms of the
> cost of cameras, security personel and/or compensated pricing.
Yes, and the recording companies somehow can't raise what they charge?
For one case, you're supporting a tax. Over here, you're saying it's
not needed because people already pay for it via security devices. Use
the same logic to those companies in the art world to avoid the tax.
(Missed this one the first time round)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0639f3$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 20:09:36 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a063563$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >>
> >> > That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP
> >> > filtering,
> >>
> >> Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
> >> can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
> >> morality.
> > Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
> 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.
> >> 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 taken to
*prevent* a crime, and it's a good one, IMO. Google "Eurion Constellation",
for instance. 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Do surveillance cameras impede my movement and ensure I buy only
> certain items?
If we install high-powered lasers on 'em, they do. XD
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a065733$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> > news:4a060b30$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> >>> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their
interests.
> >> 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?
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a065596$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> > news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
> >> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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?
> Where is the corproration that protects *my* rights as a professional
> programmer? That hunts people who copy my software without paying the
> proper price, who sues them and then gives me the money I deserve?
I guess you could work for a "real" industry and then you'd have the proper
legal support :-)
> Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
> to be even nearly as bad as music piracy.
Why on Earth should the music industry care about the software industry?
> So what if someone's song is copied? He can go and get a real job like
> anyone else.
Same could be said for computer games and their programmers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean
> - the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now
Certainly most people I know that download illegal media can perfectly well
afford to pay for it, they just don't see the point in paying for it when
they can get it for free with almost zero chance of getting caught.
There is always going to be ways to copy media, pirates will always get
around any encryption or copy protection, the only way to stop people like I
mention above is to increase the chance of getting caught.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm guessing that with the move to DHT and the take-down of the Pirate
> Bay, the next step is going to be to decentralize or at least plausibly
> deny-ify the actual searching. I.e., you won't be able to tell what's in a
> torrent until you download the torrent.
>
> An easy way to do this would be to have data streams have descriptions of
> their contents at the start, and have the searchable torrents contain just
> a bloom filter full of bits.
>
> In other words, the .torrent file would have a name that's the hash of the
> .torrent file, and a section that has the bloom filter bits for the first
> file in the torrent data stream. The first file in the torrent data stream
> would contain the information that you'd be able to search on, like the
> names of files (i.e., the manifest), the descriptions of the content, the
> lyrics (for music), and so on. Then, to do a search, you plug in what
> you're searching for, find the .torrent files with bloom filter bitmaps
> that match your search terms, then connect to the appropriate sharers to
> fetch the first few blocks of each matching torrent-data-stream to see
> what is in the torrent.
Wasn't Google/YouTube forced to actually search for illegal material and
remove it from search results? What's to stop the same being enforced on
any bitTorrent search site with your scheme?
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
> > to be even nearly as bad as music piracy.
> Of course not. Music industry is *music* industry. It's not their fault that
> the *software* industry is not as adamant as protecting their rights as the
> music industry.
As big of a nitpicker as always, I see.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> 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.
I used the term "music industry" figuratively. I think that should have been
clear from my text, but I suppose not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4a05abba$1@news.povray.org...
> It doesn't have to provide content descriptions to make them usable, is my
> point. You can have a search engine search content without knowing what
> that content is or what you're searching for. That's what the bloom
> filters give you.
I still don't understand how that would protect the owners of the search
engine from litigation. If a user can get a pointer to get some illegal
content, the party that provided the pointer can be found liable, at least
if they didn't show due diligence in cleaning up their
index/tracker/whatever. How would your system work in practice (from a user
point of view) ?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a06ac5e@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> 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.
>
> I used the term "music industry" figuratively. I think that should have
been
> clear from my text, but I suppose not.
"Figuratively", meaning what exactly? What I don't understand is, when the
music/entertainment industry seeks to protect their copyrights, they become
big evil corporate bullies. Yet, you complain that the software industry
does not go the same distance to protect their rights. Many here I assume
are developers, yet vehemently and unexplicably oppose copyrights. Is it a
not-built-here syndrome? Would tables be turned if it were the software
industry that united to protect their rights?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> What I don't understand
That's rather clear.
> is, when the
> music/entertainment industry seeks to protect their copyrights, they become
> big evil corporate bullies. Yet, you complain that the software industry
> does not go the same distance to protect their rights. Many here I assume
> are developers, yet vehemently and unexplicably oppose copyrights. Is it a
> not-built-here syndrome? Would tables be turned if it were the software
> industry that united to protect their rights?
The problem is that *governments* have their priorities all messed up
because certain industries lobby them to overly protect certain things
which are not *that* important, while other, way more important things
don't get almost any (actual) protection at all.
Governments in many western countries are allowing non-governmental
organizations to act in very governmental ways, such as imposing fines
and taxes on people. These organizations are sometimes doing things which
in a different situation would put them in jail, such as harassing and
extoring people. And all this because of what? Music? And the government
turns the blind eye on this.
The priorities are completely messed up. There are things which would
need stronger protection much more urgently than some f***ing music. Who
cares about music? Commercial music making could just die, for all I care.
Who would miss it? (Besides, that would certainly not kill music making.
People have been composing music from the dawn of time, without any kind
of protection or monetary incentive.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a06da1b@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> The priorities are completely messed up. There are things which would
> need stronger protection much more urgently than some f***ing music. Who
> cares about music? Commercial music making could just die, for all I care.
Curious, do you feel the same way about movies? In any case, I understand
that you don't think being a musician is not a real job, and that music is
worthless. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But the sheer amount
of music piracy, if not sales, indicates that a great majority does not
share your feelings and needs those things. It's a business as any, and
there are all kinds of businesses someone somewhere deems unnecessary. Who
really needs music, TV, movies, computer games,... etc - they are all time
wasters anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Curious, do you feel the same way about movies?
Making movies is much harder than music, which is why I appreciate movies
more.
> In any case, I understand
> that you don't think being a musician is not a real job, and that music is
> worthless.
Being a musician is a real job, but it doesn't deserve special protection
which nobody else has.
For example, someone who composes and directs the soundtrack for a movie
*is* making a real job, and is earning his money directly from what he is
doing (he gets part of the movie's budget in order to do his job).
Someone who composes music for a videogame is making a real job, making
his part of the whole, and getting a salary for it.
But why does he deserve a stronger protection than the other people
creating the movie or the videogame?
> You are of course entitled to your opinion. But the sheer amount
> of music piracy, if not sales, indicates that a great majority does not
> share your feelings and needs those things. It's a business as any, and
> there are all kinds of businesses someone somewhere deems unnecessary. Who
> really needs music, TV, movies, computer games,... etc - they are all time
> wasters anyway.
You still don't understand the concept of priorities, don't you?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a05a9f1$1@news.povray.org...
| pan wrote:
| > Site seems just as operational as before.
| > And - the appeals are yet to be litigated.
|
| You know how I lost my job once? The USA started arresting people in
| countries where online gambling is legal, and suddenly nobody wanted
to do
| any software for online gambling. Someone with less cajones and fewer
| servers than the pirate bay owners is going to fold a lot easier.
|
| But thanks for missing my point.
|
Easy enough to ignore a supposed point founded on a shaky supposition
that
pirate bay has been "taken down". Try for accuracy next time and try to
restrain
from tossing out thundering declarative assumptions.
I didn't ignore the bit about DHT (that's interesting enough not to
require a
sensationalizing lead in). Your light got smothered by a bushel of
wishful
thinking. (You would agree that you are blatantly against the tenets and
operations of priate bay, eh?)
Don't bother - you win.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawazorg<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a07196f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> 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.
Need I remind you of speed limits, radars, traffic lights, bus traps, even
remote disablers... etc? Motoring *is* aldready restricted.
> 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.
Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
you or I like it or not, that's going to happen.
> Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?
Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they have
no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet). Private citizens should
not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
I think we'd be better off if they regulate street traffic, and do
little regulation of Internet traffic. The two are not tied together.
One can result in loss of death - hence the need to regulate. The other
is far less tangible, and is to support something not many agree with.
One has consensus, the other doesn't. One can make an argument for
revamping copyright law without many caring. Revamping traffic laws to
reduce regulation is not going to go over well with the public.
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
I should add that at least in the US, driving is a privilege provided
by the government, and not a right. Hence it's a lot easier to justify
their regulating street traffic (not to mention the fact that they built
and own most of the infrastructure).
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4a074309$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. To be frank, I believe that right now
this is more a political issue (in the general sense) than a technical one.
No layer of obfuscation or deniability is going to stop litigation if the
copyright holders believe that it's in their best interest to sue and that
their copyright-based business model is sustainable. This will last for a
while, but the truth is that the whole copyright system, which made sense
when all goods were tied to physical objects, has been gutted by digital
technology and rendered useless. As a copyright holder, I've been writing or
reviewing contracts with IP clauses for a while now, and these clauses are
becoming more and more abstract and unenforceable while getting in the way
of actual business.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. To be frank, I believe that right
> now this is more a political issue (in the general sense) than a
> technical one.
Agreed.
> This will last for a while, but the truth is that the whole
> copyright system, which made sense when all goods were tied to physical
> objects, has been gutted by digital technology and rendered useless.
Also agreed. I think that's the fundamental problem right there.
For example, you're probably technically violating copyright law by reading
this message. It's created copyrighted, and I haven't explicitly given you a
license to download a copy from the server. If I want google to not save a
copy of my web pages, I have to explicitly change what I write to include
instructions to google to tell them not to reproduce modified derivative
versions of my copyrighted works.
While I think artists should be paid for their work, suing search engines is
a hack. I'm also against things like regulating antihistamines because some
people make dangerous drugs from it. If you can't catch the actual
law-breaker, it's probably a bad law to punish the otherwise-legal precursors.
--
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 5/9/2009 7:09 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a063563$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>>
>>> That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering,
>> Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
>> can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
>> morality.
>
> Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
Surveillance cameras in stores are the equivalent of a company
monitoring downloads from their own website.
ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
> You also need to make it hard for people to violate the law.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 9:37 PM, somebody wrote:
> 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.
I've never seen a copier do this, and I have in fact copied currency.
Of course, nobody I know would be stupid enough to be fooled by a
photocopy of currency, but that's beside the point.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 12:55 AM, somebody wrote:
> Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
> society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
business model that allows them to continue making money.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Of course, nobody I know would be stupid enough to be fooled by a
> photocopy of currency, but that's beside the point.
>
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367859/
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:46:45 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a07196f$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>
> Need I remind you of speed limits, radars, traffic lights, bus traps,
> even remote disablers... etc? Motoring *is* aldready restricted.
It's not totally disabled, which is what you propose for p2p traffic.
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And
> whether you or I like it or not, that's going to happen.
Again, you are proposing filtering certain file transfer technologies.
That is not monitoring, regulating, and policing, that is totally
eliminating - even for legitimate use.
If you can't see that distinction, then again there's no point in
discussing further.
>> Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?
>
> Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they
> have no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet). Private citizens
> should not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.
Well, there's something we agree on, but I do understand the perspective
of people who want to limit the 2nd amendment.
There is a fundamental difference, though. Guns cause serious injuries
and death. p2p downloading doesn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:13:00 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> loss of death
I think you meant "loss of life", but it reads funnier this way. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:07:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
> making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
I don't know that this is even analogous. ISP filtering is more like
keeping you from entering (or leaving) your home because you might do
something illegal in your home.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:26:17 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> If you can't catch the actual
> law-breaker, it's probably a bad law to punish the otherwise-legal
> precursors.
Well stated.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a07ad62$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:07:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> > ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
> > making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
> I don't know that this is even analogous. ISP filtering is more like
> keeping you from entering (or leaving) your home because you might do
> something illegal in your home.
Can I play too? OK, ISP filtering is more like killing puppies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a07aa08$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/10/2009 12:55 AM, somebody wrote:
> > Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
> > society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
> business model that allows them to continue making money.
So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
model instead of seeking protection?
It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
to succumb to theieves. Is your judgement being clouded by the underdog
mentality? Some of the businesses may be big (many are not), but they are
providing livelihood to many individuals, down to the janitor who cleans the
studios.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
>> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
>> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
>> business model that allows them to continue making money.
>
> So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
> model instead of seeking protection?
Completely different. A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
has a limited number.
It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
then it's gone.
> It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
> to succumb to theieves.
You know what's absurd? Hiding your head in the sand.
Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
piracy. From a pragmatist's standpoint, it makes sense that businesses
find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
customers.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a082f86$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> >> A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
> >> The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
> >> should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a
new
> >> business model that allows them to continue making money.
> >
> > So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new
business
> > model instead of seeking protection?
>
> Completely different. A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
> has a limited number.
Typical fallacy.
> It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
> then it's gone.
Same difference. A tomato does not represent value to a farmer as a fruit
that he can eat. It's value is as a commodity that he can sell to make
income. Steal a tomato, a farmer has one less to sell. Steal a song, Apple
has one (OK, maybe 0.125 for you who say not all those would buy it anyway)
to sell. It's about stealing away legitimate business by illegal means.
> > It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding
businesses
> > to succumb to theieves.
> You know what's absurd? Hiding your head in the sand.
>
> Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
> Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
> piracy.
Just as car thieves are here to stay. All protection schemes can be broken.
But both technologically and legally, there's much to be done to minimize
the damage.
> From a pragmatist's standpoint,
Switching gears now I see.
> it makes sense that businesses
> find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
> customers.
By definition, one who steals is not a customer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new business
> model instead of seeking protection?
If a person selling groceries leaves his wares out at night and doesn't
secure them, then yes - he needs to change his business model.
> It's supremely absurd to me that you advocate forcing law abiding businesses
> to succumb to theieves. Is your judgement being clouded by the underdog
And the solution is to decriminalize much of it. They're thieves
because of overreaching laws, not because it is somehow morally or
ethically wrong.
> mentality? Some of the businesses may be big (many are not), but they are
> providing livelihood to many individuals, down to the janitor who cleans the
> studios.
And yet, I don't believe they receive any of the payments from the
fines that people pay. Besides, I fail to see the point in invoking
them. A poor business model is at least as responsible for these
people's livelihoods as is piracy.
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ 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 in message
news:4a06e618@news.povray.org...
> 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.
That's called mandatory auto insurance. And you and I both pay upfront.
Funny how you think you are bringing up absurd analogies to detract, but
they end up supporting my case. You *do* pay a premium for financial damages
caused by thieves, be it autos or songs. So stop supporting them if you know
what's in your best interest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 May 2009 00:16:59 -0600, somebody wrote:
> Can I play too?
No. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
