 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You can read about it here:
http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/
What I'm almost immediately reminded of, is the backstory of Ray Bradbury's
classic "Fahrenheit 451". While the government is often seen as being
totalitarian in that book, I have always viewed it as a protectionist,
decadent consumerist democracy (I think I got all the adjectives in there).
While I haven't read the book in 20+ years, my recollection (which may even
be wrong! lol) was that the society had essentially decided that books did
more harm than good. And who needs books? You can get everything you need
from watching your gigantic television (parlor room), or driving your car at
200mph. Trade-in those harmful concepts for a sheltered life that is free
from guilt and pain... Utopia!
In that vein, I think an updated Fahrenheit 451 would start out just like
this. Initiate a filter that removes "harmful" (or illegal)
content/material, then keep expanding the definition of "harmful".
Eventually, intelligent bots can do it for us, so no one even needs to know
what "harmful" is anymore. Fast forward a few decades...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UncleHoot <jer### [at] questsoftware com> wrote:
> http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/
"The good news is that the European Parliament are already skeptical of
mandatory filtering. Will national governments be so sensible?"
Not the Finnish government, at least.
(What is even stranger, and scary, about the Finnish internet censorship
is that not only is the exact list a secret which ISP's must not divulge,
but the exact authority or authorities who decide what goes into the list
is also a secret. Nobody outside the government and the police force knows
who is making the decisions.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (What is even stranger, and scary, about the Finnish internet censorship
> is that not only is the exact list a secret which ISP's must not divulge,
> but the exact authority or authorities who decide what goes into the list
> is also a secret. Nobody outside the government and the police force knows
> who is making the decisions.)
They're starting to talk about the same thing for the USA.
Altho the whole idea that the list is secret or that the people figuring out
what goes on the list is secret smacks of asking for corruption right there.
I can't imagine that there's a good reason for keeping the list secret.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"UncleHoot" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> You can read about it here:
> http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/
>
> What I'm almost immediately reminded of, is the backstory of Ray Bradbury's
> classic "Fahrenheit 451". While the government is often seen as being
> totalitarian in that book, I have always viewed it as a protectionist,
> decadent consumerist democracy (I think I got all the adjectives in there).
> While I haven't read the book in 20+ years, my recollection (which may even
> be wrong! lol) was that the society had essentially decided that books did
> more harm than good. And who needs books? You can get everything you need
> from watching your gigantic television (parlor room), or driving your car at
> 200mph. Trade-in those harmful concepts for a sheltered life that is free
> from guilt and pain... Utopia!
"Fuck books! Where's my pr0n?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/01/2011 12:50 AM, nemesis wrote:
> "Fuck books! Where's my pr0n?"
There is no pr0n, and it is really _you_ that is bent.
[OK, it's not *quite* The Matrix... ;-) ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > (What is even stranger, and scary, about the Finnish internet censorship
> > is that not only is the exact list a secret which ISP's must not divulge,
> > but the exact authority or authorities who decide what goes into the list
> > is also a secret. Nobody outside the government and the police force knows
> > who is making the decisions.)
> They're starting to talk about the same thing for the USA.
> Altho the whole idea that the list is secret or that the people figuring out
> what goes on the list is secret smacks of asking for corruption right there.
> I can't imagine that there's a good reason for keeping the list secret.
The major problem with the whole internet censorship thing is that it
*really* can end up being a slippery slope, because once it's in place,
the threshold to add more things to the censorship list gets significantly
lowered.
It starts with child porn. Some time after they will probably also start
censoring other trendy scapegoats such as racism and terrorism-related
sites. Once you start censoring racism, the slope gets very easily very
slippery. They'll start adding more and more things that are considered
"racist", such as criticism of (major) religions.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> the threshold to add more things to the censorship list gets significantly
> lowered.
Yep. *Especially* when it's secret and the general public can't complain at
the absurdity of stuff on the list. Commie Scare coming up!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > the threshold to add more things to the censorship list gets significantly
> > lowered.
> Yep. *Especially* when it's secret and the general public can't complain at
> the absurdity of stuff on the list. Commie Scare coming up!
I wouldn't say the secrecy is the major problem. (Secrecy is problematic
for other, mostly ideological, reasons because it goes against the principles
of an open democracy where the citizens are, in principle, the ones who
govern a country, through representatives. If the government keeps something
secret from their own citizens, it means that they are not representing them
anymore, but it has become an oligarchy instead.)
If the police adds something to the censorship list that they have no
legal right to add, somebody is going to find out sooner or later, when
they stumble on that site and wonder why they get the "sorry, we can't
let you into this website because of police orders" message. One of them
is then going to circumvent the censorship eg. via an anonymizer proxy
and find out exactly what is it that is being censored, and when they find
out that what is being censored is actually not something that can legally
be censored, chances are high that they will make a ruckus about it. (This
has actually happened.)
The major problem is that once the censorship system is up, the threshold
of expanding the censorship law to cover more things is significantly lowered.
It will start with things that most people agree are "bad" (such as racism),
and go from there to things that the government doesn't like (such as
critique of major religions).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> out that what is being censored is actually not something that can legally
> be censored, chances are high that they will make a ruckus about it. (This
> has actually happened.)
Sure. Another way to censor folks is to just not resolve the domain name, at
which point you don't even find out the stuff is there, because it doesn't
wind up in google, etc.
The problem with making it secret is that someone has to stumble on it, make
the ruckus, get the censorship reversed, and then repeat for each improperly
censored site. If the list is public, the interested public can go through
the list and say "Hey, why is Joe's Pizza on that list?" If there's a
handful of sites on the list "by mistake", that's quite different from 30%
of the sites being there because some politician didn't want the
competition, and there's no way to tell the difference if the list is
secret. Especially if they then go pass laws saying things like the
censored site's owner isn't allowed to raise a ruckus.
> The major problem is that once the censorship system is up, the threshold
> of expanding the censorship law to cover more things is significantly lowered.
> It will start with things that most people agree are "bad" (such as racism),
> and go from there to things that the government doesn't like (such as
> critique of major religions).
Fully agreed. But at least if the list is public, those of minority
religions can point out they're being censored.
I.e., it's the same reason our court houses are open to the public. If
you're doing something wrong in secret, there's much more possibility for
abuse than if you're doing something wrong in public, even *if* the laws
allow for you to be doing evil legally.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > out that what is being censored is actually not something that can legally
> > be censored, chances are high that they will make a ruckus about it. (This
> > has actually happened.)
> Sure. Another way to censor folks is to just not resolve the domain name, at
> which point you don't even find out the stuff is there, because it doesn't
> wind up in google, etc.
The problem with that is that it's unconstitutional (at least here).
The government has no right to stop people from sending or receiving legal
information. Doing so would be a clear violation of the constitution.
Censoring an entire domain name will usually cause this to happen (unless
the domain name is extremely specific and contains only illegal material).
> The problem with making it secret is that someone has to stumble on it, make
> the ruckus, get the censorship reversed, and then repeat for each improperly
> censored site.
Well, the authority who added the legal site to the list should be held
responsible for breaking the law. Guess if that has happened here. And yes,
completely legal sites have ended up in the censorship list. In one instance
there was actually somewhat of an international controversy because a
website dedicated to the memory of a deceased princess of Thailand ended up
in the Finnish censorship list. Guess if there were any legal consequences
to the authority who made the mistake. (I'll give you a hint: No.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Censoring an entire domain name will usually cause this to happen (unless
> the domain name is extremely specific and contains only illegal material).
Certainly one wouldn't be able to do that to facebook.com. wikileaks.com?
Probably.
> to the authority who made the mistake. (I'll give you a hint: No.)
Exactly. Guess why the people who decide what goes on this list is also
secret? I can't imagine why that would be secret either, except to protect
the people adding things to the list they shouldn't.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 21 Jan 2011 22:56:17
Message: <4d3a5561$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 3:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> UncleHoot<jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
>> http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/
>
> "The good news is that the European Parliament are already skeptical of
> mandatory filtering. Will national governments be so sensible?"
>
> Not the Finnish government, at least.
>
> (What is even stranger, and scary, about the Finnish internet censorship
> is that not only is the exact list a secret which ISP's must not divulge,
> but the exact authority or authorities who decide what goes into the list
> is also a secret. Nobody outside the government and the police force knows
> who is making the decisions.)
>
That is any entirely different problem. Such filtering is kind of like
stretching a net across a river, with random sized holes and **hoping**
it only catches fish, the right *kind* and *size* of fish, and misses
tree branches, otters, recreational boaters, boulders, and what ever
else ends up going down stream. Short of an AI based system, which can
process stuff like a person, **not a filter**, it just isn't going to
work *period*. Sane people know this, stupid people imagine computers
are "magic", and all they have to do is demand someone make it happen,
and it will work, somehow, eventually...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/01/2011 03:56 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> stupid people imagine computers
> are "magic", and all they have to do is demand someone make it happen,
> and it will work, somehow, eventually...
I think you just articulated "reason #1 why computer projects fail"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Exactly. Guess why the people who decide what goes on this list is also
> secret? I can't imagine why that would be secret either, except to protect
> the people adding things to the list they shouldn't.
Do you know what's the most egregious part of this whole issue? The
authorities themselves know that the majority of the stuff they put in
the list is not illegal. They are simply padding the list for shows, to
pretend that they are doing something, when they really aren't.
There are partial lists of banned websites out there (collected by people
who stumble accross them). A big bunch of the urls point to European or
North-American web servers. There is not a single country in Europe or
North America that would not take child pornography seriously and wouldn't
start an immediate investigation if the police department of another country
reported such a website located in their country.
However, as far as I can tell, the Finnish police does not report these
allegedly illegal websites to the countries where they are located. Why not?
Obviously because they know the material isn't actually illegal. They are
just padding the list for shows. (From the published partial lists, the
majority of the websites contain gay porn, and a small portion have nothing
to do with porn or anything illegal at all.)
Obviously if there was a website with real child porn in it, the proper
course of action for the Finnish police would be to contact the authorities
of the country where the server is located (as said, many of these servers
are located in Europe and North America). Just adding the websites to the
censorship list and then forgetting about it is probably the worst thing
they could do.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 22 Jan 2011 16:39:13
Message: <4d3b4e81@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> However, as far as I can tell, the Finnish police does not report these
> allegedly illegal websites to the countries where they are located. Why not?
> Obviously because they know the material isn't actually illegal.
That is an excellent point as well.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4d3ad55f$1@news.povray.org...
> On 22/01/2011 03:56 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> stupid people imagine computers
>> are "magic", and all they have to do is demand someone make it happen,
>> and it will work, somehow, eventually...
>
> I think you just articulated "reason #1 why computer projects fail"...
>
Reminds me of an idea that I had for a comic strip that I'd like to paste on
my cubicle.
Panel 1:
(young man talking to wizard)
young man: So... I really want this girl to fall in love with me.
wizard: Hmmm...
Panel 2:
(wizard looks pensive)
wizard: What you are asking is not simple. There are a variety of factors
to consider. I should be able to give you an estimate within a couple of
days, but you're probably looking at a couple weeks of work, at a minimum.
This will not be cheap.
Panel 3:
(young man looks shocked, wizard looks stern)
young man: What??? I can't afford that! I thought this would just take a
couple of minutes!
wizard: Well what do you think this is? Computer programming???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 24 Jan 2011 09:46:53
Message: <4d3d90dd@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> young man: What??? I can't afford that! I thought this would just take a
> couple of minutes!
> wizard: Well what do you think this is? Computer programming???
Heheh. Yeah. Like it's that easy. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-1-2011 15:26, UncleHoot wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8"<voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4d3ad55f$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 22/01/2011 03:56 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> stupid people imagine computers
>>> are "magic", and all they have to do is demand someone make it happen,
>>> and it will work, somehow, eventually...
>>
>> I think you just articulated "reason #1 why computer projects fail"...
>>
>
> Reminds me of an idea that I had for a comic strip that I'd like to paste on
> my cubicle.
>
> Panel 1:
> (young man talking to wizard)
> young man: So... I really want this girl to fall in love with me.
> wizard: Hmmm...
>
> Panel 2:
> (wizard looks pensive)
> wizard: What you are asking is not simple. There are a variety of factors
> to consider. I should be able to give you an estimate within a couple of
> days, but you're probably looking at a couple weeks of work, at a minimum.
> This will not be cheap.
>
> Panel 3:
> (young man looks shocked, wizard looks stern)
> young man: What??? I can't afford that! I thought this would just take a
> couple of minutes!
> wizard: Well what do you think this is? Computer programming???
>
So why don't you draw that? creating comics has been done
before in this group.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 24 Jan 2011 12:56:45
Message: <4d3dbd5d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 10:32 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 24-1-2011 15:26, UncleHoot wrote:
>> "Orchid XP v8"<voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:4d3ad55f$1@news.povray.org...
>>> On 22/01/2011 03:56 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> stupid people imagine computers
>>>> are "magic", and all they have to do is demand someone make it happen,
>>>> and it will work, somehow, eventually...
>>>
>>> I think you just articulated "reason #1 why computer projects fail"...
>>>
>>
>> Reminds me of an idea that I had for a comic strip that I'd like to
>> paste on
>> my cubicle.
>>
>> Panel 1:
>> (young man talking to wizard)
>> young man: So... I really want this girl to fall in love with me.
>> wizard: Hmmm...
>>
>> Panel 2:
>> (wizard looks pensive)
>> wizard: What you are asking is not simple. There are a variety of factors
>> to consider. I should be able to give you an estimate within a couple of
>> days, but you're probably looking at a couple weeks of work, at a
>> minimum.
>> This will not be cheap.
>>
>> Panel 3:
>> (young man looks shocked, wizard looks stern)
>> young man: What??? I can't afford that! I thought this would just take a
>> couple of minutes!
>> wizard: Well what do you think this is? Computer programming???
>>
>
> So why don't you draw that? creating comics has been done
> before in this group.
>
If he could draw, he wouldn't be doing POV-Ray? lol Seriously though, I
have had ideas I would have loved to do too, but I can't draw with shit,
and 3D-ing it would have been an even bigger pain in the ass.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
news:4d3dbd5d$1@news.povray.org...
> On 1/24/2011 10:32 AM, andrel wrote:
>> So why don't you draw that? creating comics has been done
>> before in this group.
>>
> If he could draw, he wouldn't be doing POV-Ray? lol Seriously though, I
> have had ideas I would have loved to do too, but I can't draw with shit,
> and 3D-ing it would have been an even bigger pain in the ass.
>
Bingo. My 12-year old daughter can now draw much better than I ever could.
Maybe I could do it in the style of xkcd, tho. Or heck, just send him the
comic. LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> The problem with that is that it's unconstitutional (at least here).
> The government has no right to stop people from sending or receiving legal
> information.
And yet they banned radar detectors, which is just a radio; and "made illegal" a
dish that could receive the unscrambled HBO signal, way back when.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 15 Feb 2011 11:10:51
Message: <4d5aa58b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/14/2011 11:07 PM, dickbalaska wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is that it's unconstitutional (at least here).
>> The government has no right to stop people from sending or receiving legal
>> information.
>
> And yet they banned radar detectors, which is just a radio; and "made illegal" a
> dish that could receive the unscrambled HBO signal, way back when.
>
Strictly speaking, the former is an attempt to undermine legal
authority, and the later was reception of content you where *supposed*
to be paying the company for. Sadly, it never seemed to occur to them
that the best solution was to encrypt the damn signal in the first
place, until later. Sort of like if some fool tried sending "secret"
data, in plain English, over telephone lines, but "encrypted" it as it
entered the building at its destination, then decrypted it again at the
telephone. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have gone, "Heh, now..
wait a second..."
In any case, one can argue that neither is, technically, "legal
information".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sadly, it never seemed to occur to them
> that the best solution was to encrypt the damn signal in the first
> place, until later.
You mean, until later, when the technology was economically feasible?
Remember that HBO was around long before even digital cell phones, let alone
cheap hardware encryption that could keep up with a signal as broad as a
television broadcast. Remember that HBO started five years before the Apple
][ and TRS-80 were cutting edge, and before even RSA public key encryption
was conceived.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 16 Feb 2011 20:42:45
Message: <4d5c7d15$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/15/2011 10:21 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sadly, it never seemed to occur to them that the best solution was to
>> encrypt the damn signal in the first place, until later.
>
> You mean, until later, when the technology was economically feasible?
> Remember that HBO was around long before even digital cell phones, let
> alone cheap hardware encryption that could keep up with a signal as
> broad as a television broadcast. Remember that HBO started five years
> before the Apple ][ and TRS-80 were cutting edge, and before even RSA
> public key encryption was conceived.
>
Well, that is true. There was a period in which it was probably not
feasible. But, this is a bit like making a digital player, which only
supports RAW, then coming back later and adding encryption and DRM. You
could argue that everything *prior* to the addition of those was fair
game, more or less, if you could engineer the means to see it, but
after.. not so much. In a fair world, it should be the copyright owners
suing the channel for the infringement, not the channel trying to do
something about the people that just happened to know how to make a
receiver (or bought one, for legit use).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> could argue that everything *prior* to the addition of those was fair
> game, more or less, if you could engineer the means to see it,
If it's coming into your house and there aren't laws about it, then sure.
And indeed, that's generally how it was looked upon. But then the
politicians passed laws making it illegal to build/use/etc a receiver for
the frequencies which were reserved for people paying for content.
> something about the people that just happened to know how to make a
> receiver (or bought one, for legit use).
I don't know where encryption comes into it, then. You could equally say
"fair game for people who know how to break the encryption", which is
exactly what the DMCA is addressing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In a fair world, it should be the copyright owners
> suing the channel for the infringement, not the channel trying to do
> something about the people that just happened to know how to make a
> receiver (or bought one, for legit use).
Just because you know how to do something, have the equipment to do it,
or it's easy doesn't mean it should be legal. IIRC the law in the UK
states that receiving any information over the air that you are not the
authorised recipient for is illegal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Regarding Australian content filtering...
Date: 17 Feb 2011 21:26:58
Message: <4d5dd8f2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2011 8:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> could argue that everything *prior* to the addition of those was fair
>> game, more or less, if you could engineer the means to see it,
>
> If it's coming into your house and there aren't laws about it, then
> sure. And indeed, that's generally how it was looked upon. But then the
> politicians passed laws making it illegal to build/use/etc a receiver
> for the frequencies which were reserved for people paying for content.
>
>> something about the people that just happened to know how to make a
>> receiver (or bought one, for legit use).
>
> I don't know where encryption comes into it, then. You could equally say
> "fair game for people who know how to break the encryption", which is
> exactly what the DMCA is addressing.
>
Except, that is legal to do, for "your" media, but not for broadcast.
I.e., DVD decoding, where no other option exists. But, if there is
another option, then it is still illegal. Bloody mess, really.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
