Slashdot Mirror
UK MPs: Google Blocks Child Abuse Images, It Should Block Piracy Too
nk497 writes "If Google can block child abuse images, it can also block piracy sites, according to a report from MPs, who said they were 'unimpressed' by Google's 'derisorily ineffective' efforts to battle online piracy, according to a Commons Select Committee report looking into protecting creative industries. John Whittingdale MP, the chair of the Committee — and also a non-executive director at Audio Network, an online music catalogue — noted that Google manages to remove other illegal content. 'Google and others already work with international law enforcement to block for example child porn from search results and it has provided no coherent, responsible reason why it can't do the same for illegal, pirated content,' he said."
Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument. Seriously, if you're going to start the debate, at least provide something tangible.
Just filter out every mention of UK Members of Parliament and their policies from your search results for, say, 28 days, and see how keen the censorious, self-aggrandizing, cockwombles are on compulsory filtering after that.
Child abuse and piracy are not comparable. Child abuse is human depravity pushed to such an extreme that is justifiable to use it as a reason to defy common sense. Piracy is simply deviation from the rule of law - it does not warrant ubiquitous censorship of the kind that is being proposed.
If you want censorship, you should be willing to accept censorship directly as well.
Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.
Pretty easy to understand, numb-nuts.
Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation, copyright can be very complex and right can be claimed by a lot of people. The system can also easily abuse to remove perfectly legal content. But seems that UK MP like to compare pears and apples.... (or that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about)
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/
You can pay if you like. I choose not to.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Child porn is illegal to own. Pirated content is not.
Sharing child porn is a criminal offense. Sharing pirated content is a civil offense.
Even if google blocked it people would use a different search engine to find it. Stop playing whack-a-mole and do something constructive.
Why, we could completely block organizing efforts for those political parties that are advocate independence for parts of the UK: How do you like that, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and Scottish Nationalists? And then maybe get rid of those pesky Green parties, and then the Liberal Democrats too, just to be on the safe side.
I am officially gone from
Child porn can be identified without input from the content creator (looking at content is all that's needed), piracy cannot, you need to ask the content creator if it's piracy, and real piracy will attempt to hide who is the content creator to make that process difficult (and often the content creator will lie, we've seen this happen many times over on youtube where a big network steals some youtube content and then send them a takedown request for posting the content that the network decided to steal).
So to actually implement this google would have to accept inputs from supposid content creators to have whatever they want blocked, that sounds ripe for abuse to me, maybe I'll get these MPs' sites blocked for pirating "my" content.
Because then it'd have to shutdown YouTube.
One is a crime against "the innocent" (I know, I know - think about the children!), while the other is unauthorized use of the commercial properties of specific businesses. It is reasonable to expect that the more disseminated and prolific child pornography is, the more children would be abused in the creation of more images and video. Thus by directly fighting child pornography, Google is protecting children. On the other hand, when it comes to pirated material, the only supposed (and I say "supposed" because numerous studies have shown this isn't the case) damage is to a corporation's profit margin.
To me, it comes down to expecting Google to do the work of policing copyrighted material, which should be the responsibility of the copyright holders, not some middle-man search entity.
Better known as 318230.
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence.
Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Copyright is theft!
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.
Personally I still get all of my content legally (generally via rental now, ie LoveFilm and Spotify), but if the industries keep acting the way they are, they kind of get what they deserve.
You can't keep ignoring reality either. I have no idea of the real figures, but the vast majority of my friends watch TV shows and listen to music illegally. It kind of sucks, but it's how people are. Expecting everyone to ignore free sources of entertainment is slightly like expecting everyone to use film cameras when digital is available. Or expecting people to go into a dark room full of strangers just to watch a new movie. If they want to keep making money, they should embrace change, rather than fight it tooth and nail.
which is totally what she said
What a surprise. Start with the slam-dunk of getting them to ban CP (After all if you don't agree it should be banned you must be a pedo sympathiser) , then turn round and say "Well you can block that illegal content, what about this?"
What next, demand Google block sites of banned political parties? Disallow all dissenting opinions? Silence religions you don't like? This is why we shouldn't have allowed the thin end of the wedge in in the first place. Give centralised control an inch and it'll take a mile.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Nobody is entitled to make money
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?
It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.
How can I use Google to access pirated content? Google can stop indexing torrent sites, I guess, but a link to a torrent file is not automatically an index of copyright infringement (the Humble Bundle site would be blocked for example, as well as several Linux distros), and I don't think you can hold Google liable for the content hosted on third party sites. And once you create a blacklist of "torrent sites" then other mechanisms kick in, distributed tracking, magnet links, links exchanged on forums, on mailing lists, via sneakernet. What Google could do is to tell this guy "Give us a list of sites to block, backed by a judge's signature, and well'exclude them from our search results. But you will be held liable for any error in the supplied list, and it will be your duty to keep it up to date".
To reply to myself. Sentences for making child porn on the first page of search result is 25+ years. Texas being most awesome by handing out a 290 year sentence! Go Texas.
Commercial piracy sites are rather easy to identify.
I'm not entirely fond of where the internet is heading these days but at the same I do understand the never-ending battle against the various crapmeisters and scammers that ruin the internet experience.
But why can't they also turn this question around: shouldn't content providers be required to make their content available at fair market prices in all regions to benefit from this type of law?
(Note: On principle I do not like how governments are requiring search companies and social media to enforce their "will", treating these companies as an extension and enforcer of their rule. Where is the limit? I do not expect to see one, ultimately)
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
They can't block "piracy sites" because they don't exist. I get my Linux images from these "pirate sites" so they're not pirate sites. It's user uploads that are the problem.
One of these days they are going to get their wish. Then they will want to take it back.
irrational connection is irrational.
So how does a machine recognize the difference between a war photo of a bloodied child and a photo of civilian child abuse?
I don't think it's recognition, as much as definition.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
In the corporate future, making the corporation lose $1 of revenue will be an offense punishable by instant death. Judge Dredd will head the copyright crimes department.
Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.
It is not an impossible task. It is a difficult one. But we're fundamentally simply talking about two data analysis tasks. One is visual data, the other is textual data... and some checksums. Someone who can reasonably take on the former ought to be able to take a serious stab at the latter. Google doesn't want to, because they fear they will be forced to; probably true.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I doubt it is machine recognizable. Feel free to point out a source.
But "child abuse" is slightly easier to use as a reason to block off anything. You hit the
internet with a sledgehammer on "child abuse" reports, blocking off just about anything
you feel like - sometimes "child abuse".
Most countries these days have block-lists that were supposed
to block "child abuse" sites but now contains a lot more (often including critics).
You can probably sledgehammer the internet on "piracy" reports too if you want to continue
to cripple the internet.
If it makes it any easier for the MPs, I'm sure that Google would just be willing to block off the UK instead.
Why Google? I thought UK blocked everything they felt like from the internet,
regardless of provider?
And no one is entitled to someone else's work.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Okay a more concrete example. Would you consider censoring this very famous photo that appears in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc). The photo meets all the mechanical criteria for a child abuse photo. Sure, it should be easy to put exceptions for such famous images into your child porn recognition algorithm, but this would mean erecting a prude's verion of the Great Firewall, crewed by gatekeepers who decide whether it's okay for the masses to see a controversial image.
...with lawmakers who equal child abuse with unlicensed use of intellectual property. Kudoz to Google for spending serious effort on the first one, and not diverting it to the second one.
It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?
Ezekiel 23:20
Great article, mod parent Interesting.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm a proud pirate. I think the whole system is corrupt and indefensible. I think there is a role for IP, but compared to where we are now I think we'd be better off scrapping it all together. I have been known to actually buy stuff, but only when it saves me time over piracy. Sadly, it is often more convenient to pirate (especially software and video).
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I mean really, searching for Images through a Google webpage is why Google can block child porn.
Torrenting has nothing to do with Google.
Do these politicians really believe Google is the main server of the Internet?
I will agree that Google could stop search results for prolific torrent sites, but seriously, people who pirate are not starting their day searching for content on Google.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Count the number of "reputable" sites linking to it?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Mission creep. It always happens. First it's to prevent "child porn" or "terrorism". Then someone gets a bright idea - "but we can get x this way too!". And then someone else wants to use it for their pet agenda. What you end up with is police in body armor and assault rifles storming your house to confiscate files in a civil (not even criminal!) case, Kim Dotcom style.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"Google's 'derisorily ineffective' efforts to battle online piracy"
It's an indexing&search engine for cryin' out loud, not a censoring body (thankfully). Censorship falls into government territory, they should censor and block sites if they can, not force the censorship tasks onto a company. I do not want to understand why these - and other similar - people can't fathom what they're dealing with. Derisorily ineffective my a**. They are pretty effective in what they do, which is provide results for your queries. They might want to actually regulate search engines though laws, but they wouldn't like the backlash from the people, so they seem to try to force the task onto the companies (especially Google, go figure).
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The second, let's deal with all the idiot politicians.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Doesn't the ability to comprehensively search for such things as child abuse photos OR pirated software aid the authorities in tracking it down and stopping it at the sources, just as much as it aids someone trying to download it?
They are if you choose to share it. If you don't want other people to know about it then keep it to yourself. Then only you and the NSA will know.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I want to know what we block after piracy?
If we can block child porn and pirate sites, we can also block everything else that somebody, somewhere doesn't like. Right?
Shooting the messenger isn't the way to stop piracy (or child porn for that matter). All it does is drive it underground.
No sig today...
Whatever this is, it is not "online piracy".
No ships have been illegally seized, not a single cutlass has been brandished. There has been no disturbance of the lawful transfer of goods from one entity to another. No one is being held for ransom.
Violating a licensing "agreement" involves no theft of moneys, nor theft of tangibles, nor theft of services. Making and distributing an unlicensed copy of software, a book, a movie, or music may in some cases reduce the potential for future sales, but that is not a reduction in current value. It only affects speculative value. That is not nice, and there should probably be some legal protection against it, but it is not theft.
Until the legislators who are attempting to write laws start using English words appropriately, there can be no good laws written to cover this new economic activity. Appropriating verbiage from maritime law because "piracy" sounds so menacing is bullshit, plain and simple. Perhaps those who are misusing the word so much should be sent to the waters off Somalia to learn what it means.
Will
So your base assumption is wrong.
Alec (from 2012, in 2012): Someone just shorted $3.5 million of shares in Exotrol stock.
Kiera (from 2077, in 2012): Shorted? What does that mean?
Alec: It's complicated. But basically, they bet against the company being profitable, successful...
Kiera: Is that legal?
Alec: Strangely, yes.
:-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Say hello... ...to the slippery slope!
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
When you ask it that way, it is far too easy to answer it with "And why do you feel that other people are entitled to limit what I do on my computer?"
One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.
Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.
Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I would love Google retaliating by releasing the search requests for the the relavent MPs.
I know right? Why use our brains when we "think" of the children? No need to have sentences that mesh with the crime. After all, why should there be any difference between the sentences for downloading a couple of images into your cache and kidnapping, violently raping, torturing, and then murdering a hundred children? I mean, that's practically the same thing right?
Government protection for a business model that's failing (for whatever reason) is a very slippery slope.
(Before answering, consider that the music industry's golden years were when people used to freely record music which was being broadcast by radio...)
No business should expect that profits will always go upwards to infinity. Every market will plateau. Some markets will collapse. Some will no longer be able to support a huge amount of middlemen (which is who's inventing the figures for 'losses' by the music industry, despite all independent studies to the contrary).
No sig today...
But think how much it would cost to try to create and implement such system? It's a logical step - if Google can't do it, let's find some contractor company who will do it for us. Oh, the owner of this company is a nephew of a said MP? Well, it's a strange coincidence, of course!
And, after all, we can always change law back after several years of abusing this broken system.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately.
The "piracy" conflict is mostly down to the music mogul's definition of "appropriate".
Remember that the actual artists very rarely get paid, if at all (see Internet for further details...)
No sig today...
And no one is entitled to someone else's work.
;)
So I take it you don't pay taxes?
Snark aside, you have it absolutely correct. No one has as a "right" to your work. In the real world, however, that only works as long as you don't ever let your creations out of your head. As soon as you casually whistle that catchy little tune you wrote, in earshot of someone else - Game over (potentially). The universe now owns it, and you can go suck eggs.
For better or worse, compensating the author of a creative work very much depends on the charitable, even grateful, feelings those works inspire in their audience. I want my favorite bands to produce more, and do my best to get money to them; on the flip side of that, I loathe my favorite bands' labels, and wouldn't stop to piss on their execs in I found them dying of thirst in the Sahara. This leads to a bit of cognitive dissonance, obviously, which I personally resolve by doing my best to compensate the artists directly (concerts, merchandise, direct sales, etc) while shamelessly pirating anything actually released by the parasites that "own" them.
There is a difference in how it is illegal. No, I did not write "how illegal it is", read the sentence again.
With child porn, the content itself is illegal. No discussions, end of story. With piracy, the same content can be illegal to download from one site, and legal to download from another site. Because the content doesn't matter, whether or not somebody has permission to distribute matters.
I have downloaded a game called Portal. First I downloaded the Windows version from The Pirate Bay. About a month ago, I downloaded the Linux version from something called Steam. That's the same game (though for two different operating systems). Yet, one version is distributed illegally (the torrent users don't have a distribution license), the other is distributed legally (Steam is owned by Valve, creators of Portal).
How is a web crawler going to tell the difference between Portal (illegal) and Portal (legal)? Sometimes even humans have trouble telling the difference, as shown by the story a couple of years ago where a shop owner was busted with hundreds of pirated Firefox discs.
Disagreeing with the current political party. They DESPERATELY want that to be blocked.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm glad to know that the MP equates downloading a song with viewing pictures of child rape. Since the content providers are pushing the MP on this, one can only assume they share the view that downloading songs is more serious than child rape, too.
This would work for famous images or images that have a certain similarity threshold to them. New images would have to be vetted. So you need to censor the news so that only photos of fully clothed and smiling children can be seen.
Because they do it to me.
My personal information I never get paid for, yet companies pirate it from me daily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Then keep it safe and hidden. DUH!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Government protection for a business model that's failing (for whatever reason) is a very slippery slope.
(Before answering, consider that the music industry's golden years were when people used to freely record music which was being broadcast by radio...)
No business should expect that profits will always go upwards to infinity. Every market will plateau. Some markets will collapse. Some will no longer be able to support a huge amount of middlemen (which is who's inventing the figures for 'losses' by the music industry, despite all independent studies to the contrary).
Actually, that would be Government protection for a campaign donation scheme from a business model that's failing.
Snark aside, you have it absolutely correct. No one has as a "right" to your work.
You've obviously never signed a contract with the RIAA...
No sig today...
You're using logic. These are politicians. If they pass a law it will be so. They have the power to alter the reality of the universe.
" I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately. "
Bards used to be able to go town to town or even in a specific town playing song at the local pub. Now they have to pay extortion level ASCAP and BMI fees to play anything that customers want to hear.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He's not completely wrong. If we didn't pay for culture, we still would probably have it around, but more of it would be hobbyist-level stuff. Not that there would be anything wrong with hobbyists, actually their work is often quite refreshing. But do we want only that?
It is inevitable that larger projects require money to happen.
Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?
It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.
You can have all of the stuff you want for free. On the other hand, if you want somebody else to produce it for you, they don't have to produce it for you for free. But, you, yourself, can do it for free.
As for the rest of your post, at least since the Middle Ages and probably long before that, the arts were supported by the wealthy and the artisans could only "perform" with the permission of their sponsor. Back then, the artisans were more like indentured servants. As long as they pleased the king, the prince, or whomever, they got to eat and ply their trade. If not, well, there is a reason why artists have the reputation of being starving.
It should surprise me that a politician doesn't understand the difference between criminal and civil offenses, but honestly, it doesn't.
A photo of a bloodied child is not illegal no matter what the cause. Sexualized imagery is clearly what's being discussed, as that's all that's illegal. And it's made even easier by laws in many jurisdiction stating that anything that looks like a child is illegal, even if they're actually 30 years old and just underdeveloped; even if it's a cartoon or digital rendering.
I still don't think these are usually machine-recognized yet (I believe the usual system is a bunch of third-worlders sitting in front of monitors with images flashing by and a button to click if it's "illegal" or "offensive"), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had algorithms also feeding in potentially illegal images. But yeah I doubt they're totally blocking much of anything without some human somewhere looking at it briefly.
That's basically how content filtering is currently done by major corporations. They give a bunch of third world "consultants" a big list of what's OK and what isn't and just feed them images to select if they're violations or not.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-secret-censorship-list/
Nobody is entitled to make money
That is true, but if we distribute free copies of everything, we deprive the creator from any chances of even theoretically making money (by offering people actual value). Ultimately that leads to commercial entertainment not being profitable, and we can say goodbye to complex things like GTA V, which cannot happen at all without strong financial backing.
While it's not a complete replacement at this time, Kickstarter projects have produced a number of very good games in addition to physical products. I call it micro-patronage, it's basically many patrons, this is how complex art was frequently made for a very long time.
Culture is what we do, shared culture is nothing more than an expression of tribalism, you can never stop personal piracy because it's wired into us. The only thing copyright is good for, arguably, is to keep businesses from ripping off other businesses wholesale.
Contrary to popular belief, people do support things they really, really like. But every piece of art is not special and most will never be worth very much money. It may suck as a musician to find out that the recorded version of your work is worth only pennies via Spotify, but that is the reality. The live version of your work, if you work at it, may become worth far more.
Finally, copyright really is a rather silly concept, we're granting the ability to make money on a work and lock it up effectively in perpetuity, no other groups of people, despite their hard work or creativity, benefit from such a scheme. Not even the auto industry fashion design enjoy copyright, both very big and successful industries.
Well, that's a bit puerile. If company X steals your data, is it ok to steal intellectual property from company Y? Or do you only download films produced by Google?
What is the license for 123d56.iso? Are its content copyrighted? If it is copyrighted, does it's license permit this particular use case, in the source and destination regions involved? Google has 40,000 extraordinarily skilled people working on problems like this. If they say it's a problem they can't solve, I believe them.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I preordered Iron Man 3 on BR. It wasn't shipping yet, so I downloaded a copy.
What the fuck was their problem with making me wait to watch a movie I enjoyed with my kids?
They could just as easily sell the movies at the theatre. But they don't. It's still all about the buggy whips.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
because google is the only company that steels personal data from you? Every site you go to now a days seems to take it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Actually, Noir by KW Jeter deals with that theme, though it's more the infringing of copyright that the merits death.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The systems that recognize child abuse are usually comparing it with known photos.
Technoli
Maybe then there would be an incentive to create an uncensorable alternative.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Even trained federal agents can't seem to tell the difference, and you expect an automated algorithm can? How exactly do you tell the difference between an advance copy posted to a blog by the artist themselves and an advance copy illegally leaked to a blog by someone else? The difference between kiddy porn and pirated content is that kiddy porn is always illegal. The exact same .mp3 file on the exact same server could be illegal today and legal tomorrow if the guy hosting it goes and asks for permission.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml
Have Google block Netflix, iTunes, Hulu and every advertised legal video and music service and then go in and explain the problem again.
Or, even more likely there is a law enforcement database of known child porn images, and you look for what you know is out there. In my soul, I have to believe that the generation rate of new kiddie porn images is low enough that law enforcement keeps up with it, and investigates when new images start showing up at the dark crevices of the internet that distribute them.
Good music was pirated to death
Actually, no, the heyday of music sales was also the heyday of Napster. Music sales drops directly correlate to (A) the lowered number of premiere band and album launches and (B) the music industry's lack of ability to forced-obsolescence much of their product compared to past years. Tapes wore out; Vinyl required great care. The music industry enjoyed a massive boost with CDs largely because they could resell the same old crap, plus all their "new acts", on CD and people would actually buy the various greatest-hit collections and album re-releases on CD because their old copies were degrading and not playing back at the same quality.
The nice thing about digital, though, is it doesn't degrade. And people have learned about transferring things device to device, and their RIGHT to do so.
There's also the nice rise of the single again, with people able to buy just the TRACKS they want rather than having to buy a shitty-ass album to get the one track they liked that was way overplayed on the radio from this summer's one-hit wonder. Great for consumers, lousy for coke-addled music execs who counted on selling CD albums at $19.99 forever.
The music industry is in decline because all they are producing is Biebers, Gagas, and twerking bimbos rather than elevating the best new acts. They do this because they can get the Biebers, Gagas, and twerking bimbos cheap and sign them to a long term contract early (much like Disney's "this is how we sell sex to 5 year old girls" tools, the Jonas Brothers, or the former trajectory of most Boy Bands).
What it would take for the music industry to stop the decline is to start producing a better product again. "Piracy" did not cause the Biebers, Gagas, etc. The relentless drive of one-hit wonder crap albums, tweeny-pop boybands, twerking bimbos, Lesbos Like Bieber, and on and on caused people to be leery of buying product sight-unseen.
> Come on self-entitled brats. Lets hear why you should be allowed to have all the stuff you want for free.
A human can instantly recognize something is child pr0n.
Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
Even if you can recognize something as a bit of a popular song or video clip, how can you know whether it is authorized (therefore not piracy) or whether it is fair use under the law?
The self entitled brats are the copyright owners thinking Google and everyone else should do their job for them and owe them a living forever and ever for doing something creative one time.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
> Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.
A human can recognize something is child pr0n.
Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
Even if you can recognize something as a bit of a popular song or video clip, how can you know whether it is authorized (therefore not piracy) or whether it is fair use under the law?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately.
The "piracy" conflict is mostly down to the music mogul's definition of "appropriate".
Remember that the actual artists very rarely get paid, if at all (see Internet for further details...)
That is true. Ironically, piracy is a misnomer. Most music studios long ago convinced the courts that the music wasn't tangible personal property to get around various sales and use taxes (in the US anyway). As such, by definition, it can't be piracy as there is not tangible property to steal. It may be a copyright violation, but even that is questionable as a downloaded mp3 is not the same as the original work or even the the uploaded mp3 (different electrons, arranged differently on the magnetic media). In reality, it is a contract violation between the original purchaser and the studio. But since the studio can't tell who the original purchaser is, they go after everybody else (and pay politicians to change laws to permit it).
But, be clear, piracy, by it's very nature requires tangible personal property, which electronic media, by definition is not.
How is it machine recognizable? How does a machine recognize a "late bloomer" 19 year old or a "early bloomer" 16 year old? Or similar pictures of actual child porn vs a pediatric medicine textbook with legitimate value? Is that naked baby or toddler photo that everyone seemingly has from their childhood recognizable by a machine and should it be filtered?
Many of the same arguments that apply to piracy have analogous with regards to child abuse. Both have cases where it's really easy to say yes that is illegal. And both have cases where it's not obvious, or worse where the obviousness is wrong.
You kind of have two arguments there: 1) people should have stuff for free and...
but strongly disagree with the first one. I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately...
Well really you have two different issues contained in just your first argument: (a) People should be able to enjoy art for free; and (b) Artists should be able to receive compensation for their contributions to society.
Those are two different things, and they may both be true. But you know, maybe we need to make concessions on both sides. It may be that we can't get everything completely free whenever we want, but it may also be that we can't have copyrights be too restrictive or abusive. You can say that people aren't *entitled* to free art, but you can also say that artists are not *entitled* to make money for their work. There has to be some give and take.
And when you get down to it, copyrights are a relatively new invention that were designed to sway things in favor of the artist. It's an experiment that has had many many problems in its short history, enough that it can't be considered an unconditional success. It's time that we reevaluate.
Well, thank you for being honest. At least know we know that it isn't about fair play, respecting someone's work or making sure that someone can make a living off of their work. No, it's just fuck you, you can't stop us.
In return, I offer you a "Nuts!". There's always Linux to run everything at home. Including a private a VPN for friends.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Personally, I think most artists are lazy fucks who think that doing work for about 3 months should entitle them to a lifetime of luxury. I prefer to support people who actually play music. You know, concerts.
Nope, haven't bough music in years. But I have been to more than a few concerts.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The problem with that argument, is that they are only talking about blocking illegal things. I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from blocking illegal things, to blocking legal things. I mean, if they can stop people from selling drugs, or illegal firearms, or alcohol to minors, they can also stop them from selling stuff that someone doesn't like. But in reality that doesn't happen.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
People were creating artwork long before copyright was invented...
All copyright has done, is encourage the greedy by allowing someone to continue getting paid for work they did long ago.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Download films? What dork does that. you rent the Bluray from Netflix and rip it so you get a superior copy.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The issue is ownership. To block illegal copyrighted material you must know if the distributor (web site) is legally allowed to serve the material. Given that we can't reliably determine the owner of half the copyrighted material on the web, this could be a problem.
You provide your information by going to their sites. If you don't want to give them your info, don't give your info. If that means not going to sites, then don't go to sites. They don't come in to your house and interrogate you until you tell them about yourself. They get the information as a result of YOUR actions. If you don't like it, don't use the service.
This is the same issue as with pirating music because "record companies are bad". If they are bad, the answer is don't consume their product, not take it at will because you are too lazy or spoiled to go without the product made by whatever "big evil" company. Sony pissed me off with their changes to remove Other OS. Guess how many games I have played for my PS3 since then? About 1 (when it otherwise would have been about 30+). It cost me money to go and build a PC that could play games better than the PS3 and there are some exclusive titles that I had to go without, but that is how REAL protest works.
If you take the product anyway, it tells them they have a product you want and are simply too selfish to care about paying for it. If you want to make a statement, don't use the product at all. Then they HAVE to ask themselves why people aren't consuming the product and fix the problem. Otherwise, they will simply continue to try to address the issue of people not wanting to pay for a product they still want to consume.
AJ Henderson
Okay first of all when google tries to eliminate child porn, they have the assistance of the police who in general are trying their best to eliminate this content because we've deemed this sort of content less than legal. I think most would agree this is a clean directive and relatively simple to understand.
When it comes to media organizations such as RIAA, it's pretty obvious they don't care too much about the music, people or privacy. All they care about is making money from the system. This results in them blanketing everyone with lawsuits including themselves and folks who are completely innocent.
If the police were like this it would be like them shooting everyone in the building to catch a single criminal because somehow that's a much better idea that actually doing your job correctly. This is the key difference between google looking for child porn and looking for pirated media. The organizations they need to co-operate with operate entirely differently.
Sometimes the slope really is slippery.
The vast majority of people I know also don't *SHOCK HORROR* always abide by the posted speed limits. Sometimes it's perfectly safe to speed, sometimes it's taking the piss. You have to exercise judgement in each and every case. If there were some kind of super surveillance mechanism that criminalized every person each time they went 1% over the speed limit, you would either have a nation of criminals or a nation of people with occupation mentality.
How about "because the pirated product is actually better quality and more functional than the so-called genuine article"?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/when-piracy-offers-a-better-product-the-legitimate-for-pay-versions-will-al
Sometimes, the winning move is to not play. I recommend civil disobedience to our corporate overlords - pirate everything you can even if you're not going to watch/listen to it.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
It starts out protecting the children, then it moves to protecting content authors. Then it moves to protecting government officials from negative political speech. Then it moves to protecting criminals from journalists reporting about their actions. Where does it end? You might as well just take down the internet and block everything.
Just block anyone searching from the United Kingdom ... unless they hide where they are coming from, of course.
I'm sure Baidu would like to set up a censored internet search engine customized to the needs of Parliament.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Okay. I'm sure you can cite many examples of copyrighted child porn to back up your argument.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
IIRC Sony and Google have a bit of a problem with Youtube videos. Sony was uploading videos to Youtube for some viral marketing and then sending takedown notices because Sony didn't know Sony uploaded the files. To further complicate things, Sony then sued Google for not taking down videos it had uploaded and certified that they owned.
Why would anyone want to throw more gas into that mess?
Even if making that situation more complicated seems like a good idea, what about all the incorrect assertions of copyright ownership? Or files that are legally shared?
In the end, I guess the lawyers will be the ones that win big.
There in no religion higher than truth.
Okay, here's something tangible. To the best of my understanding, a key difference between child porn and pirated content is that (for the most part) the producers of child porn do not want their content to be found via Google. They want the location to be findable only by becoming part of their circle of trust or whatever. As a result, when Google blocks child porn from search results, the producers are happy about it and take no action to get back into Google's search results.
By contrast, people who post pirated content do want their content to be easily searchable so that the general public will find it and download it. When Google blocks one warez site, the site moves to a different location so that it can be found again. This results in a constant cat-and-mouse game between the posters and the search giant. Heck, there's even a constant cat-and-mouse game going on between Google's YouTube division and pirated content posters, and that's on Google's own servers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Hmm, could I interest you in some swampland in Florida?
Considering that the definition of "child porn" isn't universal, how is it even possible to think that the production rate is "low enough that law enforcement keeps up with it"?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Exactly. If you don't me to have that box of Cheerios for free, then why did you put it on the shelf in the grocery store?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It is impossible to permanently deprive someone of a service and therefore there cannot be a theft of a service as theft involves the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the said property. That is why it always was a civil action until the people lost control of the country and big business bought the government.
I would happily stick to a fair market but I am not prepared to keep bending over for those that say I have to just because they can.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Google should not block anything. The police should catch child abusers, and other criminals. If Google blocks content, there's less pressure on members of parliament to increase funds for catching child abusers. As one of the founders of meldpunt.org and inhope.org, I've always said criminal content should not be blocked, but rather the criminals should be caught.
no, I don't have a sig
Child abuse images are always wrong, so they all can be blocked just based on the content. The identification can be enhanced with analyzing the text and other content in the context.
Copyrighted content, however, is wrong only if the copyright holder has not given consent. How do you know if the consent has been given? I tried searching The Pirate Bay for Skyrim so I can compare how they are described in there and on Steam or other sources. The game itself is quite clearly there without permission, but I found a lot of content that seem to be freely distributible mods, but I can't actually be quite sure. How could a computer decide about those, then?
A simple solution would be to just block all content identified as copyrighted. And no exceptions for large retailers and publishers, block them equally or it's not fair competition when the smaller legal players get blocked.
Anything legal today can become illegal tomorrow.
That's a horrible analogy. There is a clear distinction between actively preventing people from doing something and not helping them. It is generally the case you that you are not allowed to do the first, but are perfectly within your right to do the second.
There are, of course, exceptions where you are allowed to prevent people from doing certain things. However, these exceptions tend to be where them doing those things would directly affect you, unlike the case with copyright infringement.
I don't think the issue is in blocking, google can (and it seems does) block links to certain pieces of content.
The problem is reliable identification. Up to a certain age, CP is fairly easy to identify as such. Copyright infringement, no so much.
a) CP is pretty much illegal everywhere (even places that only show lip service to combating child abuse, it's still illegal)
b) Copyright varies by country, and can apply differently depending on the type or age of the content
c) There is no issue of CP ownership. If it's there, it's illegal. Just because a clip of Band X is online doesn't mean it's illegal, as promo clips etc are not uncommon
d) Fair use for certain types of clips, etc
The studios seem happy to use automated tools for take-downs that also cause some fairly significant collateral damage, so even having *them* ID potentially infringing material is fairly inaccurate.
Okay. I'm sure you can cite many examples of copyrighted child porn to back up your argument.
I think I know someone who can help you with that.
Use a proxy just to go to Facebook etc. so that the man does not know what people are using a proxy for.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Your not entitled to have Google police the internet either. Your not entitled for the goverement to spend huge amounts of money and time policing the internet for copyright either. Google is going after child preditors because that stuff is important.
I found this extremely offensive website through just a simple Google search. It must be banned instantly! After all, we can ban child abuse images, why not MPs who are idiots?
http://www.johnwhittingdale.org.uk/
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
People were creating artwork long before copyright was invented... All copyright has done, is encourage the greedy by allowing someone to continue getting paid for work they did long ago.
Tell me again how a lack of international copyright helped Georges Méliès create art and discouraged greedy douchebags from stealing it.
So we are not talking about copyright infringement then, OK. End of line. For the rest of those that are talking about copyright infringement my point is valid but for those that are talking about deception I accept that in that regard, as it is not theft, the term is just an oxymoron.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Hash list or image fingerprint. The number of such images in circulation is small enough and slow enough in growing that it's practical for a few organisations around the world, working together, to monitor and catalog them all into an 'index of child abuse' that can then be fed into an image recognition engine.
Trying to do that for piracy would be as effective as trying to drain the ocean with a bucket.
And encrypt everything.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Also, make sure that you always mention explosives in any post whether or not it's about terrorists. Throw in some unusual words like fertilizer, salt peter and the fact that nuclear power plants are remarkably easy to sabotage.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
There is a big difference between Child Porn and Pirated content:
Pornographic pictures of children when seen can be objectively judged as child porn and easily filtered. If you see it, it's Illegal, and filter it. Save the hash- if you see the hash again, immediately block it.
Copyrighted content has to be judged if the person distributing it has clearances to distribute it. If you see a stream of a TV show, how do you know instantly (and automatically) that it's illegal? Even if you've found an illegal instance, you can't automatically block all subsequent instances as they may be Fair use, or authorized IE: song used as background on a commercial. Since it contains a copyrighted song, should google block it from YouTube automatically, even though the car company that posted the video has paperwork giving them clearance?
It's not easy to block copyright infringements without blocking valid uses. There is no valid use of Child Porn under the law.
From blocking things that are illegal everywhere to thing are illegal in some places.
The reason why child porn is blocked is because the person pictured is the underage victim of a crime
and the creation of child porn is a mala in se offense (illegal because its bad in of itself) because its the distribution of the product of child abuse.
software piracy is a malum prohibitum offense (illegal for statutory reasons).
The right to enforce copyright should lie with the copyright holder not the state. Not all copyright holders choose to exercise their rights or have constructively abandoned their rights (aka Abandonware), something the law has not been updated to reflect.
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence. Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image. Copyright is theft! The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.
Odd that UK levies child porn fines in British Pounds, but copyright infringement in dollars...
And where did you get your info? Wikipedia contributors seem to disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978#Sentencing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988#Criminal_offences
And no one is entitled to someone else's work.
I take it you've never read the constuitution to see why there's such a thing as copyright in the US in the first place? The whole purpose is to encourage artists and writers to produce things so they will go into the public domain. Originally it was only 14 years.
I also take it that you've never read any Asimov.
Free Martian Whores!
Shows give a lot of money. The Three Stooges and Abbot & Costello made their money at shows. Their films and shorts were advertising for them, only the studios made a lot.
That's why some of the richest performers are Vegas gods, like Wayne Newton, and why guys tired of touring like Elvis set up permanent shop there.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That's just a lack of imagination on your part. Why is it that we have to use this one, specific model (copyright/licensing/royalties) to ensure artists get revenue?
Theft of Services is a crime in most places, and it is usually called just that in the statute. You're just wrong on this one. Theft is about failure to pay, not about "permanently deprive someone" geekthink.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a cargo truck full of Bluray DIscs.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?
Probably the same way you "divine" the age of the participants in a particular "child pornography" image. Especially the hand-drawn ones where you don't have a telepath close enough to read the artist's mind.
Honestly, given 2 files: one a naked picture of a possible child, the other an mp3 of Michael Jackson's Bad, which is more difficult to identify, programatically, as illegal?
Somebody didn't think very hard before they suggested this idea.
If computers were able to detect copyright infringement, then there wouldn't be any DRM, or if there was DRM, nobody would have a problem with how it worked, and so there wouldn't be enough infringement for anyone to want to block.
If computers were able to detect copyright infringement, then HBO's DMCAbot wouldn't be sending takedown notices to Google for half of the pages on the web that use the word "boardwalk" or "thrones" somewhere in their text.
But computers aren't able to detect copyright infringment, and to date, every single attempt to have them try to do it, has resulted in over-the-top comedic failure that was deployed thirty years before it was ready.
Nobody's computer ever went to law school and learned the difference between infringing and non-infringing uses. Geez, ask experts whether or an H.P. Lovecraft story is still under copyright, and you can get two different answers. And you want computers to accurately identify each work, know its publication history, know whether or not its distribution is authorized, understand the nature of a use asnd its effect on the market, and then have the smarts to put all the facts together and come up with "infringing" vs "non-infringing"?
Tell you what. If I ever get a message from Google about DMCA-blocked search result that isn't absurd bullshit, or if I ever hear about a DRM scheme that doesn't prevent innocent noninfringing uses, then the idea may start to have some credibility. Until then, seriuously asking for Google to identify copyright infringement, is like seriously asking your Honda dealer where the lot with the flying cars is.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.
Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.
Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.
Agreed on the DRM, disagree on the war zone children.
* Children in war zones should not be combatants, they should be civilians. Any child in a war zone who is acting as a combatant is being maltreated, or ill-used; definition 2.
* Civilians are non-combatants, and so should not be getting injured. A civilian being injured due to wartime activities is being "hurt or injure[d] by maltreatment"; definition 2.
I don't think that BitZtream exceeded the definition; it seems to me he got it spot-on.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Definition number 2 looks fairly apt. It's not nice to blow up children.
Agreed on copyright infringement. The very same file may be infringement in one context and fine in another and Google has no way to know the context.
The Three Stooges didn't make a lot of money for various reasons. The studios kept most of the money while trying to disguise the fact that the Three Stooges were very popular lest they demand more money. Not too surprising really since at the time the shorts at the start of movies weren't commonly though to be that valuable. So they kept cranking out the shorts like working stiffs. Later on they figured out how valuable they were but by then their popularity was declining.
The odd thing about that is that different people have different ideas of what's sexy. Some people get really turned on by high heels popping balloons for some reason. So is a picture of a fully clothed child trying out mommy's high heels and popping a balloon forbidden?
I'm utterly content waiting for the mail. If you can wait for it to come out on disc in the first place, who cares? Also, that meme predates Slashdot considerably.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> Have you never checked out a girl
No. Never.
Ever.
> Not even with metadata attached to the file? Not even with a database, like the CDDB . . .
That does not mean it is piracy. Just because you can identify something doesn't mean the use is infringing.
First there is fair use. Can you determine whether a particular use is fair use? The major record labels can't. They have to go to court.
Then there is the issue of authorization. Just because you can identify something that is clearly copyrighted, doesn't mean that it isn't authorized to be where you found it. The major record labels have used DMCA to take down content that they themselves uploaded for promotional purposes! And on multiple occasions! If they can't even tell what they themselves uploaded and authorized, then how can you or especially a machine?
And finally, as for the issue of "clearly copyrighted" (in my previous paragraph), EVERYTHING is clearly copyrighted. So even if you CAN'T identify it doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted -- by someone. Everything is instantly copyrighted the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. So ANYTHING you find online is copyrighted. Is it piracy? Is it infringing? Is it authorized to be there? Is it fair use? Can you tell? Can a machine tell?
> Once you've identified a copyrighted song, image, or other work, you can then calculate what % of the entire file is using that copyrighted material.
There are already court precedent cases that some uses of 100% of the material are fair use. There are multiple factors that determine fair use. Percent of the work quoted or excerpted is not the only factor. And there is no magic percent that you have to cross. There are other factors such as character and nature of the use, and others I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The key word is "rewarded appropriately"...
Continuing to pay someone for years after they performed a work is inappropriate.
Paying someone for performing their work (eg at a live concert) is perfectly appropriate. And like everyone else, they should be required to save their money while they are earning it in order to pay for their retirement etc.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
So Google thought that bending over and censoring search results will protect them from further harassment from the copyright industry? They got kicked in the face with the same boots they are kissing.
They actually are not overly effective at blocking child porn, are they? I can find it with a quick google search. Would you be all that upset if they blocked piracy as ineffectively as they actually block child porn?
It is not some super-effective Google filter that makes child porn harder to find on the internet; it is the relatively small amount of child porn out there, as different police agencies jump on whatever they find and prosecute people. If they jumped on piracy as hard as child porn, their would be a lot less piracy as well. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine why they will never do that. Don't confuse your problems with finding child porn with Google filtering; it's got very little to do with the latter, despite what John Whittingdale MP might claim.
The biggest difference is the scale of the problem. There is probably half a billion people who have commited copyright infringment. I would be surprised if there are more than 10,000 people involved in child abuse. The stakes are very different as well. You discover a person involved in child abuse you may save the lives of several children. You discover copyright infringment you may save the music industry a few hundred dollars. That if you don't count the money lost to lawsuits from all the false positives.
The problem with that argument is that they're talking about moving from categorically illegal things to things with potential legal use.
I haven't used The Pirate Bay much, but I'd imagine you can find legal stuff there. Somebody with proper authority has to determine whether a site is a real copyright infringement site or a legal site with some infringement, and there have to be somewhat reasonable criteria. This is in contrast to child porn, which is clearly illegal and can be reasonably be considered reason to block a site.
I assume it's possible to identify child porn. I've read that there are some fairly common images that can be easily automatically tested for, and it should be reasonably easy to identify something as child pornography. It's harder to tell whether a copyrighted work is up legitimately or illegitimately, and we've seen cases where one part of a copyright-holding enterprise has demanded takedowns of stuff posted legally by another part.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Theft of Services has nothing to do with copyright infringement, though.
If you steal my car, I don't have my car anymore. If you get me to do some work for you by threat or fraud or something, that's some hours out of my life that I'm not getting back, and that's theft of services. Theft in general means I lose some sort of scarce good, whether material or not.
If I infringe your copyright, I'm not taking anything physical. I'm not getting you to perform for me and then not paying you. I'm not actually depriving you of anything. I may be reducing your expected earnings from a work, but I could also do that, perfectly legally, by giving you a bad review.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You can only practice Art for a living, if someone agrees to finance your living. There are several models for that: patronage, entrance fees, taxes (which are governmental patronage), sponsored competitions which hand out prizes...
Why should I do that? Am I Kiera or what?
Ezekiel 23:20
I, as a consumer, would really like Google to keep child porn out of my searches and out of YouTube. This is not about shooting the messenger, this is about providing quality content. If you don't want that, there is always 4chan.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
A movie is not a service, how they deliver you a movie for download is a service and frankly the current legal available services suck monkey balls, at least in the Netherlands. The whole business model is becoming a soap bubble much like the housing bubble. Artificial prices which are not driven by market supply&demand
If I infringe your copyright, I'm not taking anything physical
Sure you are, you're taking the money you didn't pay me - a scarce good that I'm now deprived of. If "money" is not an important good where you are, then that sounds like a nice planet.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Even trained federal agents can't seem to tell the difference
Can't, or don't want to?
How exactly do you tell the difference between an advance copy posted to a blog by the artist themselves and an advance copy illegally leaked to a blog by someone else?
You want me to do the work for you?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't believe there is any moral standing for pirating other than a "screw the arseholes" attitude however the counter argument to the piracy is theft of services is that there is actually no cost to the producer in the piracy "theft" whereas in the case of true theft of services you are depriving the provider of those services of, at the very least, their time.
Now the argument could be made that each creation of a work dilutes the value of that work but in fact when it comes to entertainment the opposite is true - each person that views any given work actually increases it's value and marketability.
No the parent is correct. Choosing to share your work means attaching a copyleft notice. By the social contract and laws of the land you are not actually sharing your work by selling a single copy with a (C) 2013 clearly attached. You probably mean to argue that this entitlement should be the law of the land. In that case provide arguments (there are some) as your post hints at some sort of anarchy (people are entitled to take because they can).
Out of interest, would you be happy if every CD/Bluray came with a legally-binding non-distribution contract you had to sign before taking possession?
You've missed the point a little bit. but that's ok. Would you like another try?
> Sure you are [taking something physical], you're taking the money you didn't pay me ...
That's a convoluted way to argue that something has been taken from the creator, and is still wrong. The pirate starts with $5, takes it from himself so he has $0, then keeps it by not paying the creator and ends up with $5. The creator starts with $0 and ends with $0. The parent poster's argument still stands: Nothing is taken from the creator that he didn't have in the first place.
And the argument that there is something morally wrong in 'depriving a creator of income' is also appallingly bad. By this standard of 'theft' the following is true:
1. A person sells a second hand book. The author gets no money from this transaction even though the new owner benefits from the work. This is 'theft'
2. A person persuades a someone that a movie is rubbish. The movie studio get no money from the second person and is deprived of income. This is 'theft'
Sure you are, you're taking the money you didn't pay me - a scarce good that I'm now deprived of.
Um... if I were to spend some money on something, and don't, regardless of of it is a physical good, or digital, how is what you're saying making ANY sense? I never spent the money, so I STILL HAVE MY money, you just didn't GAIN any. You can not logically lose money you never had in the first place. That defies both logic and physics.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Piracy is a hurdle to be jumped over, if it hasn't killed media in the decades it has existed, and even the recent post-Napster age, what makes your assertion plausible? People will create, people will find ways to monetize that should they choose to, and so far it seems like the industries are surviving in spite of these challenges.
Take your doom and gloom, and cool it.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
How exactly do you tell the difference between an advance copy posted to a blog by the artist themselves and an advance copy illegally leaked to a blog by someone else?
You want me to do the work for you?
No, I want to know how the hell Google is supposed to program an algorithm to determine something that even human beings can't manage to figure out. There is just not enough information, and short of establishing a massive database of all copyright works, along with the contact information of the copyright holder, in every possible format, creating some sort of hash of each of those, comparing to every file they come across and then contacting the copyright holder for every single media file and asking if it is authorized....that's a much harder proposition than 'that girl looks under 18 and her nipples are showing'. That's my point. Filtering out piracy requires a massive amount of additional data that Google just does not have access to. Might as well demand that they build a wormhole to Alpha Centauri.
No, I want to know how the hell Google is supposed to program an algorithm to determine something that even human beings can't manage to figure out.
I don't claim that they can catch it all, but clearly they could catch a lot of it. A lot of it is very clearly marked, they're not even removing that. (The issue of whether they should have to is orthogonal to the technical conversation.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They remove it if they're sent a DMCA request or some other similar legal assertion from the copyright holder. That's really the best they can do. What else do you want, block The Pirate Bay (for example) entirely? They're even already partially doing that, restricting non-infringing files from their results because of it.
By taking (a copy) from me, you incur a debt, which you fail to pay. Simple as that. It's more akin to theft of services than shoplifting, but then some media-related goods people might shoplift are just thrown out if unsold, so sometimes it's not all that different.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This is the typical argument of conservative MPs and US Congressmen & Congresswomen who are in the pocket of the very corporations afraid of losing a few cents to free information and free speech. 'Piracy' is only a concern for the super-rich and power-hungry. The people just trying to make it in music and film most often encourage people to freely copy their work to get it in the TVs, phones, and MP3 players of more people. People should be glad that copyright is dying.
Lets hear why you should be allowed to have all the stuff you want for free.
Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence. Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Your argument
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one
is based on verifiably false claims using mixed currencies showing either your carelessness or laziness in its formation, which is similar enough to what the sarcastic rebuff to the OP was deriding.
Your post being modded "+1 agree" several times inspired me to reply requesting that you back up your argument with something tangible.
I missed nothing here.
doesnt anyone have anything better to do like, solve the worldwide crises or fight the terrerists ? ...) where people swapped floppy disks, maybe piracy was more like a social thing then and my ever-returning topic : im sure the old people in charge of copytrolling remember the days when home recorded cassette tapes were destroying the music industry and cost the beatles their third pool a year as well
is it possible to block ? does actual child porn actually exist on the frontface of the internet ? not like i ever googled and accidentaly came across a link that led me to reportable imagery. Unless run-over roadwhores in sneakers and pigtails are considered
that, i think it would be way more productive if google tried to remove the first two pages of non-paying links on popular searches since about all of those lead to some kind of this-is-what-you-need-to-do-*keyword*-just install this (thing that will then download and install what you need in order to get to or install *keyword* but in fact replaces your search with something that gathers data and or installs a bit of malware on the side)
i dont think piracy sites need search engines anyway, i remember the days (dramatic music in the background
i also still think that the cut in losses if suddenly all sites went down would be negligible since its far from proven that everyone who downloads a blockbuster or game would actually for out the money if they couldnt, no one ever really makes statistics on that
as far as uk-news goes i found the bit where the chief of police appeals to 'end the war on drugs' a lot more interesting anyway
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
The subtle point missed regarding mixed currencies is fines from the USA regarding copyright issues to other countries that have nothing to do with US law. That's why I switched those.
No matter. The structure is real crimes when compared to downloading a file, tend to have a balance issue with sentencing.
The joke was: a person downloading child porn on their computers getting arrested for copyright infringement rather than the childporn issue. The corporate over the humane angle.
I know you didn't get any of that and may want to argue a point I'm not making; So take away the above as being the intention.
good day.
Sorry, but this is completely false. Child abuse is not machine recognizable, and many of the tools that claim to do it, but fail.
- just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean I'm not out to get you.