Slashdot Mirror
Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright
mferrare writes "This from Reuters UK: An Australian court ruled on Monday that users of Kazaa, a popular internet music file-swapping system, breached music copyright and ordered its owners to modify the software. The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright"
The Freenet Project is working towards the next major release of the Freenet software, hopefully this side of Christmas. Among the major new features will be:
- Trusted links, so that only your friends will know that you are
part of the network
- Switch from TCP to UDP to support seamless firewall traversal
- Complete code rewrite and simplification
- Support for live broadcast of information, in addition to storage
and retrieval (allowing everything from IRC over Freenet to "instant
RSS")
Freenet's goal is to ensure that people have the freedom to share knowledge without fear that someone is looking over their shoulder. Unlike Kazaa, Freenet is a voluntary, non-profit free software project.The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland, but currently the project's reserves are very low, so if you can spare it (especially given the more immediate drains on people's generosity), your donation would be much appreciated.
"...was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright."
Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether.
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
so when are car companies going to be told to put limiters on all their cars set to the max speed limit in that country because, you know if they allow me break the law by speeding then obviously i have no choice but to do it.
...that decided it could change the rules of Formula 1?
who's still using kazaa anyway? it's full of adawares and spywares
From TFA:
The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright.
Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Check out aussie journalist Garth Montgomery's full coverage "kazaagate" site here
Including the full official court ruling as well
No I dont know him, but have found the site very insightful throughout the trial.
I feel for you, I really, do.
I am a developer and just had a similar discussion with somebody in a p2p hub.
He was looking for upgrades to his already pirated and cracked software.
I outlined my stance and got a positive reaction from the other users in that hub.
It was as follows, I don't mind if people download and play or use my software or others, but if it becomes enough to want to play online with friends every day, or enough to become a business asset, then that person SHOULD become a customer. Expecting upgrades for something you haven't paid for steps way over the line.
I would be proud to see my software listed on p2p, mainly for the fact of more eyes seeing it.
I just don't like the scrotes that take it too far.
ps, when I read about your national list of pirates, I couldn't help but think of the Flying Spaghetti monster.
liqbase
1) The NRA defence of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is now dead
2) Microsoft are liable for writing an OS that they KNEW would enable virus writers to propogate
3) DARPA are buggered as they built the underlying technology to DELIBERATELY enable information sharing.
I'm one of the few people who don't do illegal downloads but this really isn't an attack that work in the above cases so why does it work here?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Freenet is slow. And i am not talking about the developemnt cycle (if you are on the unstable branche you would think it goes very fast). I am talking about the download speed.
,an open source client without any spyware, that does provide search (where is the search button in freenet?)
That is because the freenet was developed for anonymisation, not for file exchange. That is, freenet is good against compagnies that sue their own customers.
If you want to leave kazaa because it future is doomed because their next client will/should contain copyright restrictions (I am sure there wil be lots of trolls here that say you can not determine this, true, but flaimbait) you might want to switch to emule
If you live in fear because ou think some compagny might sue you because of copyright violations please use freenet. But you might get afraid they capture you for aiding terrorist/childporn. Don't worrie you will never get such charges get uphold by a court, (if you get there).
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
I'm afraid this isn't obvious to me. I never buy CDs from record stores; I buy them on the internet, often second hand. It is cheaper, easier (order from your house, and they deliver), and I don't like browsing in shops. People are still buying music, legally, just not from you. They buy on the internet, either CDs or downloads (e.g. iTunes Music Store).
Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright What? By this logic, the manufacturer of a firearm would be held liable for any murders committed with said firearm because they knew it could be used for such a purpose. Thankfully, such cases have been struck down in the USA. This is an awful decision. If we were to hold manufacturers responsible for what people did with their products, we wouldn't have guns, knives, VCRs, computers, cameras (kiddie porn!), or even pencils. There is almost always a destructive use for any type of technology, but that doesn't mean the technology should be outlawed or it's creators punished.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
C|net:t +Kazaa/2100-1030_3-5849480.html
/ 2005/1242.html
http://news.com.com/Australian+court+rules+agains
Full judgement:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct
- reasonably plain english, and worth reading. No cause for outrage here folks.
Hm, a family music store owner who cusses out kids, no matter how stupid in his store. Good one.
Frankly, I haven't bought a single CD in about a year (no, I haven't downloaded anything either, I don't have the time, and my currently fairly extensive collection serves me fine on the few occasions I have a moment to listen to my tunes, like in the car on my way to clients'.)
I'm sorry to hear about your business. My mom and I have both built up small companies individually. However, we've done so in areas in which there was demand. I've done my best to keep on top of that demand, and to adapt my services to what's required; as long as I can keep doing this, life goes on.
However, if anyone was so fucking arrogant as to come up with something like a "blacklist", I would be the first to sign up for it voluntarily. As I've said, I don't pirate music; most of what's around today is too shit for me to waste time on. I've 3-4 CDs I've burned from friends, but compared to the ca. 700 I _bought_, you'll agree that these are peanuts.
As I wrote in a letter to the head of consumer relations for EMI Germany when I realized that my girlfriend had bought a copy-protected disc that took me more than 5 minutes to rip a copy of so she could listen to it in her car without scratching the original, I will not subscribe to ANY goods or services from ANY company that treats me like a potential thief instead of a customer. I'm an honest individual, I'm smart and hard-working enough to be prosperous, and that's a pretty choice customer demographic. But hey, no EMI CDs for my girlfriend (who owns several) or myself since...
However, I don't care how barefoot your children have to walk to school, if you, as someone who wants to sell me something (which you do not seem to) even hints at a threat, I will vote with my wallet. Maybe some of the 7-10 friends whom I will, as a statistically average consumer, ask to do likewise, will also avoid doing business with you. So what? You're not selling air or food or water. Maybe some of their friends will too. In fact, I've already noticed myself going to fewer movies just because the RIAA warnings and "no cameras" signs piss me off on principle. So what? There's cafes and books and girls in short skirts outside, I think I can deal.
And you know what? I don't matter. I'm just one among millions. But act like an arrogant prick instead of someone who wants to woo me for the purpose of an honest exchange, no matter how hard you're being hit by '1337 p1r8 d00dz, and you may see that the ones among millions from whom you won't see a red cent out of general principle will add up.
It's capitalism, survival of the fittest. With an attitude like that, no business has any right to exist.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
It's interesting to note that the parent comment went from Insightful to Troll in the time it took me to read it and click reply...
Seriously man, I feel sorry for you that your business is facing a difficult time, but a "national register of pirates" doesn't sound like the best option to me. To ban people from buying CDs would only encourage them to pirate more, wouldn't it?
I will admit that I have used P2P to obtain music in the past (although barely anymore, I prefer to buy music online first) - some of my favourite artists I discovered by P2P - if I have the money, I will by the CD, if I like it. If I don't like it, I probably won't listen again, and since I wouldn't have bought it anyway, nothing lost.
I actively encourage people to buy CDs of the artists in order to support them. Bumblefoot is my favourite artist and I went to the trouble of importing his CDs from the States (not available in the UK) after I had downloaded them with P2P. Interestingly enough, it was Bumblefoot himself who put his own music onto P2P.
You also mention Metallica - a group whose policy on piracy I can't agree with because they were putting strong pressure on Universities to permanently expel students they suspected of sharing their stuff - an action that would have serious effects on their education (duh) and quite possibly long-term effects on their career. It is quite disturbing to realise that this is the way they would have their loyal fans treated for wanting to share their music with other people.
Just so you know, I'm not advocating piracy. I'm advocating sharing music and if possible, buying the CD to support the artist. I'll tell you for nothing that "piracy" has made me a better musician, and has definitely made a difference to the possibility of me recording and distributing my own music some day.
Indeed, sad story.
It's not just about Australia anyway. All around the globe companies try to overpass their rights and tighten their customers in any way they can.
It's not just about piracy, it's about the perverse control they want to have. And they send us the bill, because each time a new technology comes out, with protection system, they make you pay for the R&D of the unwanted proctection system. At some extend, they have the right to protect themself.. but it's being rat to send the bill afterward.
If it's not DRM, it's DMCA, patends, copyrights, etc. When will the customer, or the simple tax contributor, will prevail?
Another reason for why people don't buy CD's from stores is the pitiful quality of music available there. All they sell is the garbage the music industry churns out. Loads of cookiecutter "bands" and "artists" who have never written an original word or note. Add to that outrageous prices (because of the huge cut record companies take on each and every CD) and it's a small wonder business is slow. Back in the 80's when Compact Disc technology was introduced, the huge price hike was being defended with "the price will fall when the technology propagates". Now, after a quarter of a century, CD prices have not decreased once. Instead, they have been outrunning inflation 3:1 (conservative estimate). Record companies have dug themselves into a hole with raging profiteering and expect the courts to bail them out.
Well I'd assume that the copyright holders would be the publishers, or whoever sells to the libraries, so I'm assuming the authors/publishers get something back from the libraries. The way I see it, the libraries will stock 5/6 copies of popular stuff, 1/2 copies of not so popular stuff, and the publishers will redistribute based on the roylaty agreements or whatever. Can somebody with more knowledge than me elaborate on this? Any librarians out there(shudder) on Slashdot?
My Favourite Meme
Why was this modded a troll when it's clearly saitre? I mean with gems like "They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"
I thought it was pretty funny myself.
FYI: This is a cut & paste troll that gets posted in every P2P/piracy related article.
When I was younger, it was kind of a thing to do. Go and spend an hour or two meandering around the CD store looking through racks and racks and racks of CDs. In today's world I can't prioritize that kind of time to browsing through music. In the last year I've bought about 10 CDs and it took me less than an hour over the course of the whole year to do it.
I've only gotten one album from the 'net, and it wasn't from an automated file-sharing network. It was from an acquaintence who frequents many of the same music forums that I do. It was Maxim's Hell's Kitchen album. I've since purchased the actual CD, and Maxim's second album "Fallen Angel", as a result of it.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The **aa already has fake donkey servers in the cloud. They're collecting evidence as I type this.
http://blocklist.org/ is a nice place to find blocklists for emule/edonkey and a heap of other things too. Yes, emule supports these. The servers mentioned will send a chill down your spine. (Sonny Boy !!) Have a look at the list.
By continuously exchanging copyrighted material via the internet, copyright law will not end. If we ant to get rid of copyright law, we should petition the goverments, protest (with your money by not spending it on the apparently for you, or in your opinion, to expensive materials), start a political party against copyrights, etc..
You are wrong. The best way to get rid of unjust laws is to have everyone break them so they become unenforceable.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
And people on Freenet do not swap material which is under copyright?
What's wrong with swapping material which is under copyright? I've had a BitTorrent client open all week, with my upload speed pretty much maxxed out. I've been distributing copyrighted material with it. And I haven't broken a single law. Because - get this - the stuff I'm distributing is stuff I either own or have permission to distribute.
You're an idiot if you listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies about how "distributing copyright material is illegal". It's only illegal if you don't have permission. The RIAA want you to think that copyright is a "special" thing that only "artists" get, and you - the consumer - must fear, like an ancient pagan cringing before the idol of his god. But that's bullshit.
Copyright is a simple concept that naturally applies to any creative endeavour. Including anything you or I create. And if you or I create something, and we want to distribute it over the Internet, then it makes sense to use P2P networks. At which point we are using P2P to distribute copyright material - and yet we are not breaking any laws.
Don't listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies. Copyright != illegal to distribute. Copyright == illegal to distribute without permission. Two little words that make a world of difference.
Freenet is just another P2P application, and since people have nothing to share except other peoples material, it will be used to do just that.
Maybe that applies to some people. Like you, I assume - you wouldn't say a thing like that unless it applied to you. But some of us create things ourselves, you know? And having done that, miraculously we have things to share that are our own. And we use P2P to share them.
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
The difference is that theft is always illegal. Whereas sharing copyright material is only illegal if you are also infringing the copyright in that material. Which can easily be avoided by either creating the material yourself, or getting the permission of the copyright holder to distribute it - at which point (am I repeating myself here?) you can share it over a P2P network without breaking any laws.
It is not your digital right to exchange copyrighted material at all.
Whoa, you're saying I don't have the right to use the computer I own Internet connection I leased to transfer the material I created?
Fuck that. I'll thank you not to tell me to throw away my right to freedom of speech, if that's quite okay with you. It is my freedom that's on the line if P2P networks ever actually get made illegal, and I do care about my freedom.
Go after the people who are infringing copyrights, please. And leave those of us alone who are distributing copyright material entirely legally, because we own the fucking copyrights.
You are wrong. The best way to get rid of unjust laws is to have everyone break them so they become unenforceable.
Actually, it's to publicly break them en masse, so that the jails will get too crowded so that people CAN'T be jailed. However to do that you need high numbers of people willing to do that. In the past people have been able to achieve the high numbers necessary because people WERE willing to go to jail, because the cause was something they strongly believed in.
I doubt you'll ever be able to get enough p2p users to do it, as most use it anonymously. In that case, they aren't activists. They're criminals.
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
1/ Contrary to what happens if you steal a can of soup in a supermarket, when you download an mp3, you do not prevent anybody else from having it.
2/ To defend law in that particular case, where what is at stack is not high (we are talking about (C), not talking about people dying, or even about poor people getting poorer), the judge makes a decision which, when transposed trivially to equivalent situations, hurt some of our most fundamental rights.
3/ It's hard to understand why it's okay to borrow a book from a neighboor and not to borrow an mp3 from a guy 1000km away.
Thus, differences there are.
Cheers,
--Go Debian!
The first time this story was posted, I thought, "This guy needs to see a counsellor."
f aces+ruin.+CD+sales+have+dropped+through+the+floor .%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-22,GGLD :en&filter=0
The second time I saw this story, I thought, "Umm, you already said that."
The third time I wondered what the hell is going on. Then I tried a google search and looky what I found.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22My+business+
And thats not even half the time the story has been posted. It does the rounds on slashdot quite regularly. It should be added to slashot posting spam filters or something. Great work of fiction, isn't it?
Since they can't know what you're downloading, on what basis can they sue you?
If necessary, they'll have a whole new law drawn up. Don't think they can't.
Look at the recent DMCA. The fact that it exists shows that the US Congress is happy to make laws to prevent unauthorized digital distribution of copyrighted entertainment content.
If, as you claim, there is no legal theory by which freenet can be sued, the music lobbyists simply make up a new law prohibiting contributatory anonymization.
If P2p migrates to freenet, then freenet will be outlawed.
Explain to me again where the "unjust" part of the law is.
1/ It is not about you stealing one object and preventing somebody else by owning that object. What you mention is production/distribution cost. The distribution cost is neglectable in case of digital distribution over P2P networks. The production cost however still exist, so a fee is in order.
2/ Go live in a communist country, and you are probably right. Somehow the world is a bit more selfish=kapitalism. People want money for their work, more money then what might be reasonably expected.
3/ You return the book after reading it. You do not have continuing profit from having borrowed this book. If you made a copy of the book (analog or digital), you would have a profit. Hense the name copyright.
If a music file could only be used by one person, the license or ownership of that file should be transferable from one person to another, you could even borrow it for a period of time. Since this is not the case, you are really making a copy, both having profit from it. That is why they call it copyright. Fair use is a totally other case, which might be the case with your book.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Partly saying "What the last guy said."
I must say I agree with him, and the comparision with lending a book is a good one, okay, there is only one hard copy of that book that is being exchanged, meaning that the author/publisher has been paod, whereas there could be any number of copies of files. But those files (say MP3s) came from original copies too...somebody bought the album and maybe converted the tracks either for personal use (I'm very protective of my CDs...some have only been used once...) or because they felt the stuff was so damn good other people might like it too.
I have often introduced friends to books, or have been introduced to books by friends which has led me to but the book even though I've read it at least once already, or else other books by the same author.
Equally so, when I have been lent CDs, often of bands who are quite unknown or whatever, I have been known to buy a copy (which is a rare thing, I hate buying CDs, they are so overpriced in this country...thankfully these underfunded bands sell their CDs at half the price of the overpriced ones, they even keep these prices when the artists hit it big (say, Damien Rice, though damn him for his B-Side extras and so on...).
Also, I do download things, such as mp3s or music videos. Generally of Japanese (but moreso, non-western artists), this is because about 5 years ago I simply gave up on the western music industry, I already have any worthy oldies and everything from underground to mainstream music was just hypocritical forms of the same crap. I had an interest in Japan and started by checking out some of it's artists...I downloaded quite a few mp3s, clips from live shows and music videos to get a good feel for the stuff, and fell in love with it. I then went to buy things by these artists, using the wonderful export site www.cdjapan.co.jp, and have now bought about $900 worth of stuff, maybe more, a lotof the stuff by the one artist in fact. I bought all I owned in originally "illegal" digital formats (though no laws existed to say that these were illegal in Europe at the time, though I believe the EU has decided to allow people to be deported, or certainly tried under US law), and more.
Now I said earlier, I am not someone who buys music, I liked music since a young age, had people buy me things as gifts and such, but in my entire life I have bought/been given a total of 4 albums and 2 singles (previous to import shopping sprees), I just felt buying music was a waste of money and overly costly (about 23 euros or more for an album, I am a student, I get about 30 euro a month for whatever wants I have, I always felt books made more worthwhile purchases).
However, because of downloading mp3s I found something that I loved and was prepared to shell out a lot of money for it, 30 second song bites would never have convinced me to get any of it. There are some artists I have yet to get hard copies of what I own, but when I have money in my hand it flies out quite quickly! Interestingly, it costs me as much to export an album (with DVD, which does up the price) all the way from Japan by EMS as to buy one in my local music shop.
The transfer of copy-righted things can result in the exchange of fair cash, not always, I'd say I'm a somewhat rare type. I know I did download some western music/rip friends' CDs, but I just deleted them...the stuff was just dreadful. But the thought that transfering mp3s takes from the industry's earnings is absolute tripe. I *never* was happy buying stuff, and the stuff I did download I would never have paid good money for. The industry is losing money (though I doubt it is), because people are disillusioned.
Also, to further go on with the comment that this started with...
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
Have a read of (or skip to the summary if you're lazy) http://offtheshelf.nowis.com/index.c
You might have tried this with speeding. It does not work that way. Huge protests against this kind of law might work, but just look at the basics of the law. Those basics are not unfair. The new extensions of 50 years, DRM, not able to resell your CDs legally (not law yet, just wait...) are unfair and showing to much power of the industry representing groups.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I run a small software company. The keyword here a is "small." Genuine small business with genuine employees making honest wages. After being tipped off by a customer, I looked at eMule and found that some of our software, which we sell for about 50% the price of our billion-dollar competitor, was being "shared" by 35 users.
I think it's unfortunate that you're sticking with a business model which requires artificial scarcity when for the last 10-15 years we've actually had a world of unlimited abundance.
Shame, but there you go.
Try releasing your code to everyone and wonderful things will happen (and you'll make a good deal of money through consultancy too, but that's only part of the fun).
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
For the record, I have smoked pot and hashish, I have taken the latter across national borders (I was young and stupid), I have shoplifted (a candy when I was 13), I speed on empty highways whenever I can, I've found money on the streets and not returned it, I slept with an underage girl (I was 17), I lie and cheat on my taxes as much as I can, have snuck into two movies after only paying for one, and I've copied CDs and allowed friends to copy parts of my mp3 collection (ripped from my CDs, but hey, that's life.)
I also finance terrorism, smuggle fissionable material to al Qaeda operatives in Baluchistan, coordinate a major child pornography operation, smuggle kidnapped women for the purpose of injecting them with MASTER RACE SEED (tm) in my underground lair, and leave the fucking toilet seat up BECAUSE I CAN.
But I guess the CD copying is what they're really interested in.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I can use an ftp client to get illegal software.
I can use a browser to get cracks for software.
This just in:
The following software can be used to access copyrighted works:
Mozilla Browser Suite
Firefox
Internet Explorer
Opera
Lynx
Links
www
wget
curl
ftp
cuteftp
wsftp
gftp
(This is not an exaustive list)
ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) and the AFI (Australian Film Industry) has called for a ban on the above mentioned list, and any other softwares that allow access to the FTP or WWW networks.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Our software is not technically terribly innovative. I mean, it does a good job, and is user friendly, but its value is in that we as a company gather experts who put together specialist material and then we present it in a useful fashion (I dont really want to give away who we are or what we do, but maybe let's say we create specialty training materials). Releasing of our source code will do ZERO - if somebody really wanted to, they could probably make a pretty good duplicate of our code, but our real value is in the material we present and the way we present it. There are no real bugs in our software for users to kill, and because most of our users are individuals (because of the nature of the market we are in), there is no consultancy to be had.
Look, I'm really happy for you that you have this imaginary idea of how the software market should be. and, maybe there are a few small areas where a company could legitimately succeed the way you suggest (for example, MySQL). However, in this case, your suggestion has no bearing. We do NOT have an out-of-date model, and the vast majority of our customers are honest people who see the value of what we do and have no problems paying our modest fees. In fact, we are often held up in our trade press as an example of excellent value for money.
However, nevertheless, this doesn't stop some people from pirating it. There is ZERO justification for this - those people are criminals.
I'd also mention that due to the area we work in, EVERYBODY who uses our software is not poor and can easily afford it. We are not talking about word processors or web browsers here that has applicability to "up and coming" peoples of the world. Think (and this is just a silly example, but nevertheless) as if we were selling Yacht maintenance software that requires specialist understanding of yachts to put together efficiently and is of value to yacht owners only.
The RIAA and MPAA are suing people because profits are down. Profits are down because the music industry and the motion-picture industry are producing crap, not because people download cds and movies.
Both the RIAA/MPAA and I are talking about the versions were you do not have the right to distribute it.
So instead of going stupidly into a flamebait, just know what RIAA/MPAA are doing in these cases.
Bullshit. You were polemically sloppy, and got owned.
Moreover, at least some of your arguments, and those of the RIAA, depend upon this sloppiness. Of course, I assume, in your case, this isn't deliberate. In the case of the RIAA, I'm quite sure it's the opposite.
You see, for a while, the RIAA has engaged in a deliberate misinformation and fear campaign to paint all p2p distribution as illegal, immoral and punishable by definition. They're doing this not to protect their copyrights, but to protect their business: when artists no longer need the RIAA to distribute their works as a means to promote themselves, then the record companies (which have traditionally screwed artists, by the way) go out of business.
The RIAA is actively engaged in trying to prevent the legal distribution of artists music via the most efficient method the artists have available to them. They're trying to legislate their business model and misuse the legal system to maintain profits they don't deserve.
Kythe
Who wants to look for part 745 of a 10000 part .rar file?
This is why you have utilities like par2.
Then you don't need part 745 specifically, most of the time you have enough redundancy in the bits you've downloaded that you don't need anything. And if you don't, par2 will tell you that you need x recovery blocks to repair it. *Any* x blocks. So if you can get those blocks off usenet, you're fine.
par2's also good for making redundant backups - if you make a set of par2 files that's got more than 50% redundancy, then all you have to do is put a random half on one CD and again on another. Even if both CD's are fairly corrupted, if you can recover at least half the total data blocks off the CD's, you're fine.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
This is just...amazing. I think next, we should sue car companies who pay to have their cars featured in movies where the cars are used to commit crimes (speeding, drive bys, etc).
Not a perfect analogy but its very akin. Kazaa said "you can find millions of files on our product." That is 100% true. It is also NOT hard to find millions of perfectly legal files on the Kazaa network.
This is just like my school, which has their distro of Red Hat hard coded to NOT play MP3s. XMMS is included but it will literally NOT PLAY MP3s. Their reasoning: they're a vehicle for piracy. Anyone remember when they were saying hte same about CD burners? How about VCRs? How about tapes?
This just gets dumber and dumber the farther things go. It's almost like they're saying that the company should not say you can find any type of file on their product (then why would people want it?), but I'm sure they'd find something wrong anyway.
Bomb the RIAA and MPAA. They want to make an example of Kazaa, I want to make an example of them.
Winamp was play "Anakin vs Obi-Wan" from my Star Wars Episode III soundtrack CD.
First claiming that Kazaa users are breaching copyright, what's next? Using Winamp to play cartel based CDs instead of the 'media browser' launched by the CD violates the DMCA?
Dark times indeed