Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Tool Scans Web For Violations
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on a tech start-up that proposes to offer the ultimate in assurance for content owners. Attributor Corporation is going to offer clients the ability to scan the web for their own intellectual property. The article touches on previous use of techniques like DRM and in-house staff searches, and the limited usefulness of both. They specifically cite the pending legal actions against companies like YouTube, and wonder about what their attitude will be towards initiatives like this. From the article: "Attributor analyzes the content of clients, who could range from individuals to big media companies, using a technique known as 'digital fingerprinting,' which determines unique and identifying characteristics of content. It uses these digital fingerprints to search its index of the Web for the content. The company claims to be able to spot a customer's content based on the appearance of as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video. It will provide customers with alerts and a dashboard of identified uses of their content on the Web and the context in which it is used. The content owners can then try to negotiate revenue from whoever is using it or request that it be taken down. In some cases, they may decide the content is being used fairly or to acceptable promotional ends. Attributor plans to help automate the interaction between content owners and those using their content on the Web, though it declines to specify how."
Anybody care to place a friendly wager that they're not going to honor robots.txt?
Can't they just use google or torrent sites?
If users can find items they want, presumably the copyright holders could use the same methods...
liqbase
Pretty sure this is a dupe, or so closely related to an earlier story as to not matter. Anyway, to recast points made earlier, how hard will it really be to "smudge" these digital fingerprints? Its not really different than any other DRM, and has the same issues involved. Also, who thinks that someone is going to pay for this service, and then allow their works to remain for promotional reasons? They are going to sue the heck out of the person violating copyright.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Yeah, so what? Is it unknown that the internet is 98% of illegal crap?
"as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video"
Like quotations in a paper, or video snippets in an educational presentation?
There's no copyrighted pirated things on my computer, so I don't fear th+++$£%+ NO CARRIER
-- Rastignac was here.
Seems like spam obfuscation techniques will be useful against this sort of scan, too, if someone really wanted to infringe on copyright.
"'We all know that as soon as somebody comes up with a way to secure a piece of property, somebody else will come within days and crack it,' says Lawrence Iser." ...It's the damn-hard truth...
If you don't want it on the public Web, don't put it there in the first place.
My first thought upon reading this is that we're going to the this type of thing on a wider scale. I wouldn't doubt it for a second. Corporations in this age have a tendency to blindly target anyone for anything relating to copyright or trademark.
I guess we just have to wait and see. Maybe these companies' collective IQ has suddenly jumped twenty points or so.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Doesn't this merely serve to point out the absurdity of "Intellectual Property"?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
127.0.0.1: $ cat robots.txt
# robots.txt for 127.0.0.1
# This file is copyright 2006 by me.
User-agent: AttributorCorporationDMCABot
Disallow: *
And if they do honor robots.txt, I'll be able to sue the fuckers for infringing on my copyright, because they must have read it in order to honor it.
Its purpose aside, yes, it would be a fantastic thing to be able to scan the entire web and reliably identify the context and content of any specific media file type. Video, audio, image, etc. Particularly if it could identify purposely obfuscated content.
I'm in what is almost certainly a tiny minority of Slashdotters in that I actually create copyrightable material rather than only consume it. I'm again in the minority in that I think copyrights are a good thing and again in the minority in that I can separate out the purpose of copyrights and the evil actions of the legal arms of **AA companies.
Regardless, while scanning the internet for improperly used material sounds great on paper this will probably end up being as effective as finding water with a divining rod. The current tactic of locking down things at the hardware and OS levels will get more support from the media companies, not that they seem all that good at choosing tactics when the internet is involved.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
... someone is finally looking out for the little guy, the defenseless one who is always run over roughshod and never has the resources to defend himself... thank goodness someone is finally defending the copyright holder.
roughly equal to the entire volume of the publically available internet..
think about it, to do what they say, they have to request ALL the data they can lay their hands on,
and then chuck it.. and for comparative purposes, they'll have to do it again.
so Sony hires 'jfm copyright trackers'
and microsoft hires 'sco copyright trackers'
and mgm hires yo momma
and each of these 'ip owners' representatives have to scour the entire net, bit by byte by megabyte, for their clients.
holy crap! think about the potential for bandwidth abuse- it's a corporate ddos- upping bandwidth bills for everyone
who pays for use...
as to the asswipes who suggest they 'use google' think about that- how much luck do you expect they'll have hitting google for their entire cache.... (and google pays for bandwidth too)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Attributor plans to help automate the interaction between content owners and those using their content on the Web, though it declines to specify how.
And apparently being written by underpants gnomes.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Great, now all the torrent sites will require captcha verification too! ;P
Actually, can they even scan torrents without downloading the entire file? And whats to stop everyone from just blocking them from accessing their websites? Are they going to go in covertly, pretending to be actual users? I can see every legit website blocking their access as well, why pay for bandwidth to supply that?
Sure, youtube can be more efficiently attacked...but youtube has been dancing in front of the cannons since its inception, we all knew it was going to get shot eventually.
This must be really essential bussiness software. It has a Dashboard! Wanna bet the next version is SOA enabled?
But it looks like the real "innovation" these guys are pushing toward is fully automated filing of lawsuits. I think that was in Accelerando, which is fantastic, and which you can download it free.
...from Usenet. Still going strong after all these years.
After all they just copied http://copyscape.com/ 's idea.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Why the fuck does everyone want to be paid for every little thing these days? Sure, wholesale piracy is one thing. I disagree with the idea that people should be trading movies and music online with no restrictions at all. If you want an album, buy it. If you want software that costs something, buy it or learn to use free/open software. If you want to see a movie, pay to watch it in the theater or rent the DVD when it comes out. But, where this all falls apart is when someone quotes someone else online and that someone else feels they need payment for the quote. Or... someone uses a popular song as the music bed in their Youtube video and the entire video clip is only 25 seconds long or the quality is so poor that no one in their right mind would consider keeping it as something to put on their iPod. Or, someone edits together a bunch of clips from a popular movie to make a funny statement about something. These are all reasonable uses of copyrighted information that SHOULDN'T be charged for. If the industry had their way, rap music would have never happened (because it used previously recorded material) since many of the early rappers didn't have the money to pay for sample clearance. Everyone is being nickeled and dimed to death. Why? Why does it have to be this way. Whatever happened to the concept of fair use and encouraging people to build upon the works of others?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
As long as it respects basic internet rules of conduct (including respecting robots.txt), then this is ethically neutral.
It all depends on how it's used. Many companies would prefer to avoid coypyright infringing material, and will take it down if the existence is pointed out to them. Many companies will simply be asking others to remove material which clearly and flagrantly breaches their copyright. This is perfectly reasonable behaviour.
I would have thought that someone at google or microsoft would have thought this up long before. They are in the perfect position to make it happen.
Corporate plagarism hurts the little guy too
n g-off-the-little-guy/
so maybe it's time a tool like this was in everybodys hands?
http://www.robmanuel.com/2006/12/13/is-coke-rippi
for Democracy Violations.
Sincerely,
K. Trout, EX-patriot
P.S: F The President
Of course, "a few sentences of text or a few seconds of video" most likely are being used within legal fair use boundaries. So what's going to happen is that the corporate law firm will grab this program, then send out auto-takedown notices without a human being (to the extent anyone working in the legal department meets that criteria) ever looking to see if the use is even arguably a violation of copyright. Then you'll get the backlash where at least one such auto-generated letter makes its way to someone with the knowledge to fight back and the platform to do it from, and someone will have to issue an embarrassed apology, and then probably turn around and sue the software makers.
This is one of those ideas that when the piracy community decides to do something like reverse the names for all pirated content, or just use numbered files with lookup indices, the search software fails and the company goes out of business.
This may be much less helpful than its promoters claim.
First of all, what's the their probability of a false alarm? Even if they false alarm fairly infrequently, the vast amount of content on the Web means they could easily have a flood of false alarms, in addition to whatever actual copies are found. The user of the system is then going to have to have human beings sift through that flood to identify what's A) really a copy, B) whether that copy is infringing or not, and C) if so, is it worth taking action against the infringer?
The above may be more trouble/expense than it's worth in many cases.
Not that the RIAA always bothers to verify actual infringement has taken place before suing, but some organizations may be a little more ethical, or at least a little less trigger-happy.
Ok, it's supposed to be unlawful to access copyrighted information on the Internet without the copyright holder's permission, right? I mean, that's the gist of the *AA's arguments right -- we hold the rights, you can't access this material unless we say so. So if the tool has to access the information to determine the copyright, wouldn't it be violating that principle? Nitpicking I know, but an interesting thought. They'd have to get dispensation from the *AAs to do it, wouldn't they?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
...then do not put it to the Internet.
In fact, burn it to a DVD and lock it up to a safe, and never talk about it. That way nobody else will ever have access to your "intellectual property".
Proactive firewalls (IDS) properly configured should shut the "scan" down relatively quickly, no? Besides, if the service is provided by a specific location (IP block), then IP blocking is trivial.
:P
On another note, so now they are going to throw more traffic over the Internet?
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
This is the tool Micros - um, I mean - SCO has been waiting for. They can now just scan all those millions of Linux Servers on the intraweb and see their copyrighted code right there in the open....
...or maybe not.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Asshole lawyer.
When such companies comb the Web for snippets of text, could their engines of litigation be defeated by the simple expedient of translating Gr34t w0rKs uv L1t3r4tur3 into leet-texts?
(I sure hope not!)
Like there's any copyright infringement on The Interweb. I don't see how a whole book could fit in those tubes...
So where's the free/open alternative to an album?
Or... someone uses a popular song as the music bed in their Youtube video and the entire video clip is only 25 seconds longA ringtone is 25 seconds long, as that's how long it takes for the call to be routed to voice mail.
or the quality is so poor that no one in their right mind would consider keeping it as something to put on their iPod.Over a mobile phone's ringer, quality matters little.
Whatever happened to the concept of fair use and encouraging people to build upon the works of others?Sonny Bono happened.
The cure, corrosive, caustic and highly dangerous responses flooded into the arteries of your survival - a general failing of the organs of service, and an increasingly gruesome appearance as you stamp on the consumer and turn on your distributors looking for signs of theft and duplicity.
Prognosis - Death.
I find my stuff copied and plagiarized all the time, and it's nearly impossible to enforce without a large budget for lawyers. From inventions to source code to writing.
More then I could ever possible list here, but I have come to realize it's in the nature of things.
So now big cooperate America are going to get even better at chasing stuff down and coming after everyone that even borrows a paragraph now. Using there intimidation tactics.
The place where it really gets interesting is then they steal your stuff and then threaten to sue you for copyright or patent infringement.
I know it sounds crazy till you have had it done to you several times.
Example. In 1985 I named my audio card product for the PC the "Sound Byte" showed it at a trade show then a few month later a very small competitor file for the trademark and had their lawyer send me a nasty letter. Being very broke, just out of high school and living off the sales of each audio card, I had to change my name to "audio byte"
Example 2. I released an com file of compiled assembly code to CompuServe of a program that played 6 bit digital audio out the PC's internal speaker. Several years later a company "First Byte" disassembled the code, and filed a patent on it.
At that time I was selling a sound library to game developers, they sent me a nasty letter. Then threatened several large game companies, Activation who also Disassembled my code and Borrowed it, contacted me and paid me to help then win their patent case.
But I was threatened a law suite for using my own invention!!!
Anyhow I guess that's enough pissing and moaning.
This system can tell when you copy from then, but not when they copy from you.....
This automated copyright enforcer is a dangerous thing.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
They're going to be COPYING stuff from websites into their index so they can perform paid searches on it. Why isn't that copyright infringement all by itself?
If somebody were to sue them, they would have to claim that theirs is a fair use. But, many large copyright holders (i.e. their potential customers) would vehemently disagree with such a position. That's an interesting position to be in.
It'll save me the time I spend doing 'vanity' web searches.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Put photos (content) on your website
Don't include a water mark to make it tempting for someone to download the image
Make the content available at full size or large size
Wait a few years
Send out the hounds to sniff for your content
Send out invoices for content usage
??????? Corbis ???????????
Profit
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I don't see how this will change anything; copyright holders still have to pay lawyers to go after infringing sites/servers so there is still a bottleneck. This is kind of like using video surveillance in the ol' whack-a-mole game. You may see more moles, but it doesn't mean you can whack them faster.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I'd love to see this technology available for public use. The idea is brilliant. The fact that they restrict it to members of an association is not.
I'm a Wikipedia contributor. In Wikis, you have to be paranoid about the copyrights of the contributions. We have a not-that-glamorous, as of yet a little bit limited bot that does exactly what this tool appears to do - find suspected copyright violations.
I'm sure wiki editors, bloggers, and other open content creators would be terribly interested to see where their material gets copied and would be terribly interested to know if someone's misusing the content too.
But of course, no one's listening to the little guy. Even the Wikipedia bot has to use Yahoo API (hint hint, Google folks. =)
Anyone else ever had their site visited by the Turnitin bot?
And the article mentioned Copyscape, which is more aimed at finding dupes of web pages (you enter a website, and it looks for similar pages in their index).
Sure I get that it's a joke. But that being said, A) you don't have to label something as copyrighted for it to be protected by copyright. Copyright is granted the moment you produce an original creative work. However, B) there's nothing creative about the contents of your robots.txt file. Labelling something as copyrighted doesn't make it copyrighted.
Archiving the internet? That is a LOT of porn.
Of course, some nice things about fair use are that
a) the creator of the copyrighted content does not get to decide whether the use is or is not fair;
b) although the amount being used is one of the factors used to evaluate fair use, it is by no means the only factor, and in some situations using more than a limited amount is fair.
No technology can make that evaluation, and copyright holders don't get to, either.
/sbin/ifconfig -a
Walla!
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
The editors could run this tool just on /. to check for dupes!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I can imagine this progression of events:
1) They don't honor robots.txt
2) Sites that don't want to be scanned by them will add code to their rewriting rules and/or dynamic pages so that their search bot gets directed to a dead-end page.
3) The search engine needs to be modified in such a way to hide its identity, operate through proxies, etc., in an attempt to get around #2.
Upon 3, are they criminally liable for hacking?
Please do not forget to enable mod_rewrite in your apache2 configuration. Check manual if needed.
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
Education is permitted broader rights under copyright laws, and fair use of satire and - quite frankly - mockery of corporate copyrighted materials should be enforced as well, resulting in people making fun of wierdos like Disney who want copyright to last until the sun burns out.
And then send teams with pies to smoosh in the faces of the CEOs.
But that's in a just world, not one like we live in.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
20 if RND(between_0-1) < .5 then print "IP_ADDRESS GUILTY! SUBPOENA COMPUTER DISK AND SUE OWNER." else print "We'll get 'im next time!"
30 GOTO 10
I hope they don't try to use this in Australia - I hear giving people URLs to copyrighted material is illegal...
I think you meant:
d farm_flag,minus_compomised_DRM_rootkit,plus_mil_si tes)
10 IP_FORM = 0 'FALSE
20 IP_FORM = GETIPVER(baseNet) '4 for IPv4, 6 for IPv6
30 DO CASE
40 CASE IP_FORM = 4
50 IP_ADDRESS=RND(from_IPv4_addr_space)
60 CASE IP_FORM = 6
70 IP_ADDRESS=RND(from_IPv6_addr_space,minus_chi_gol
80 CASE ELSE
90 IP_ADDRESS=RND(sony_ps3_rootkit_pirates)
100 END CASE
110 if RND(between_0-1)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So now as a countermeasure someone will produce a tool to scramble the lowest order/frequency information in the file. For example, randomize the lowest order bit in an image, randomly exchanging black[#020202] and black [#020302]. For videos and music randomize the lowest frequency that is below the threshold of viewing. It will take horsepower to reencode the files, but it only has to be done once. You only need to change one bit for a fingerprint to fail.
And the arms race goes on...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
and whenever I go out, the FBI begins to shout Title 17 U.S.C...
Nice venture-capital-boosting announcement there, but CopyScape has already been doing this for years, albeit for text only.
Digimarc (the company that has their watermark reader plug-in included with Adobe Photoshop) has a service just like this.
You give them like 20 URLs that you want to monitor (or more if you pay them more money), and they have a web spider that checks images on those sites and checks to see if one of your Digimarc watermarks is embedded in any of the images. They'll then present you a report (from a password protected website I believe) where you can see who has been using your images without permission. Apparently their technology can persist across image format and size changes (to a point), so it will even catch web sized versions of print quality images in theory. The watermarks have a variable strength, and the more resilient you make them the more visible they are.
I thought it seemed like kind of a neat idea actually.
The other thing I'm waiting for is for Google to do something like this. Maybe you could upload a small picture as a search query, and the search engine would make a low-res internal fingerprint of the image with some fuzzy tolerance, and then show you sites with matching or similar images. I'm sure it will happen sooner or later.
I'm bothered by this type of scenario:
"Dear [webmaster]:
It has come to our attention that your website, [sh*touttaluck.com], does not meet compliance in terms of a variety of copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Infractions indicated by our software include, but are not limited to:
Images created with an unregistered copy of Adobe Photoshop
Flash files created with an unregistered copy of Macromedia Studio MX 2004
PDFs created with an unregistered copy of Adobe Acrobat Professional
Content and structure created with an unregistered copy of Macromedia Studio MX 2004
Content and structure created with an unregistered copy of Microsoft Office Frontpage 2003
Images created with an unregistered copy of . . . "
...starting to see what I'm going with? I understand they're likely talking about copyrighted content such as prior art images or mp3 files, or maybe even damaging company secrets that are leaked by a whistleblower, and then redistributed for the intent of airing dirty laundry, but I'm thinking about the structure of a page itself. A person group or company who solicits a webpage to be created by a web design studio would now have to ensure that the studio itself is in compliance, or the products they use to create the pages are legal. That's where I get all nervous.
... to be sued for copyright infringement. From TFA:
It is unlikely that this company will be able to upon the same defense the traditional search engines do. Putting something on the internet is not an invitation to copy or create derivative works of the materials put online. If they are essentially building gigantic databases of materials to search, they ought to be in for a world of hurt.
Moreover, at the first action they will probably be countersued for any number of other issues: breach of contract, misappropriation, trespass etc. Not to mention those companies paying for the service will also be sued for their own acts of copyright infringement in connection with this service.
Now I wanna go forth make dummy files of all the top rated copywritten files out there, place em on a domain, and wait for the lawsuits to roll in and show their ignorance that just because something has the same hash, size, or name, doesn't mean its actually said file... just to piss them f&*kers off.
Just a few weeks ago I noticed a certain IP address was hitting wierd pages that didn't even exist, causing a boat load of 404 traffic, and doing all sorts of other nasty things it shouldn't be doing. So I did a whois on it and found it was some place called turnitin.com, advertises as a service to assist educators in finding plagirism. I promptly blocked them and immediately uploaded every paper I wrote in college and highschool.
Fair Use.
My blog is public but I sure as hell don't want it to show up in search queries.
Like my cell number. Anyone can call it but only those who know the number.
The company claims to be able to find "a customer's content based on the appearance of as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video."
This is nonsense, setting aside the fact that such things are quite probably fair use. Having any kind of complete catalog of "digital fingerprints" for a given work is (practically) impossible. At best, a few select snippets of a given document could be fingerprinted. Changing even a single bit will change a one-way encryption hash (which is, presumably, the method used here), and it won't change the fingerprint in a predictable way. One would need to catalog hashes for every subset of the given document, and the number of such hashes would grow as n^2, where n is the "word-size" of the document.
I wrote two articles on it on my blog, one general, one mathematical. Read 'em if you'd like. Beware the Digital Snake Oil How Many Substrings in a Given Text?
-- Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings
1. con the *AA into giving off loads of money saying that a new fingerprinting thingy will help them find them "arr pirates";
2. fail miserably, because it's impossible;
3. PROFIT!!!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If you must!
I've experienced this from both sides.
I have a bunch of my books on the web, and every once in a while I do a search on some text from my own books to see who else is mirroring them. The books happen to be copylefted (dual-licensed GFDL/CC-BY-SA), but I'd like to know who's mirroring them, and check whether they're violating the license. A lot of people just seem to be hoarding the PDF files on their university servers, maybe because they're afraid my web site will disappear; that's flattering. One guy was selling them on CDs on e-bay, violating my license (claimed they were PD, didn't propagate the license). Another guy translated them to html, with lots of errors, changed the license to a more restrictive one, and put his own ads up; he fixed the licensing violation when I complained, and in a way it was a good thing, because it motivated me to make my own html versions (which are now bringing me a significant amount of money from adsense every month). One kind of annoying thing about mirroring is that the people who are mirroring never bother to update their mirrors, but in general I just figure there's no such thing as bad publicity :-)
From the other side, I once received an e-mail from a museum in the UK that was complaining that I was using a 17th century oil painting of Isaac Newton. I guess they own the original, and they may also have been the ones who did the scan that I found in a google image search, but under U.S. law (Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.), a realistic reproduction of a PD two-dimensional art work is not copyrightable. What really surprised me was that they came across it at all, because at that time I think my book was only in PDF format, and hadn't been indexed by google because the file size was too big.
The whole thing doesn't seem negative to me in general. It makes just as much sense as people doing a vanity search in Google before they apply for a job, or authors watching their amazon.com sales rankings obsessively. I guess the most obvious potential for abuse would be if they send a nastygram to your webhost, and your webhost is a low-end one that figures it's not worth their time to keep your account, so they just shut off your account.
Find free books.
It wouldn't be too hard to make this software by looking up key phrases of a web site in google. If there is an exact hit, then there may be a copyright violation.
How hard would it be to intelligently grab chunks of YOUR web site and then Google those parts. Then grep the results. If there is/are positive hits (not from your domain) then light up the dashboard. If you wanted to be extra picky, query yahoo, msn, google, and whoever else you like to search with.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"Intellectual property" is meant to make you think that all information and thought is worthy of being owned forever.
Of course in the long run, this idea is counter-productive to innovation an progress.
There must be a better term to describe this behavior.
Probably there are better phrases to describe this behavior where an eternal organization wishes to acquire some information or thought, and "own" it so as to have exclusive profits on the information or thought for 100-1000 years?
It seems heading toward an information class system which could be like Feudalism.
The Lords are eternal corporations.
The Vassals are possibly the executives in the corporation.
And Peasants are the workers that find new "information" property to own (if profitable for the corporation), and then pay taxes to the corporation to have access to information.
Of course this system requires that the government keep this idea of infinite information ownership. But that has not seemed to be a problem so far for the long-living corporations.
Mmmmm, eight year old duplicate. This one really takes me back to my high school days.
Help us build a better map!
See: www.google.com
Searching for +mp3 intitle:index.of +[insert your favourite artist here] would be enough to keep these jerks busy for a while.
as to the asswipes who suggest they 'use google' think about that- how much luck do you expect they'll have hitting google for their entire cache.... (and google pays for bandwidth too)
As I understand the suggestion, it is that if regular users can find the content using google, so can the copyright owners. No robot required, just search in the normal way. If you can't find it like that, probably not many people can download it anyway.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Let's overflow them with false positive results. Hidden links to specially crafted files could lead to millions of inappropriate cease and desist letters, their horror tools will be useless. In a word, let's SPAM them ;-)
If everyone is suspect, let's all seem guilty so they can't actually distinguish. I'm not against copyright, but i'm against spies and arbitrary investigations.
Have nothing to hide doesn't mean let everybody spy.
We don't give a fu..
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Anyone got a torrent for this software up yet? Where's the best sites to download movie sigs from?
I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
The solution seems simple:
Make a tool that scans for scans from the Copyright Web Scanner (CWS), and then is the CWS is detected, do something.
Support the FairTax