He says that it works in other PDF Readers (well he mentioned one, Foxit) - because he's not exploiting a vulnerability in any of the applications, but the PDF Language itself.
But what vulnerability can be in a data format? Especially if I open it with a viewer that knows no stinkin' JavaScript etc.? GhostView and Xpdf simply say that the file is broken and display what they can.
In this case it's not even vulnerability, it's just interesting way to use the PDF specs to get that result. However as for your question, vulnerabilities aren't in the data formats itself, but in the programs that read them (buffer overflow etc)
But for once Adobe is actually more secure than the better alternative Foxit. Adobe PDF Reader at least warns and asks your permission to run the file, but Fox It does neither one but just happily runs it. That fact made me uninstall Foxit for now at least.
If 99% of Google results were illegal (and on first page on search results) and they if they aided in copyright infringement, I'm quite sure they would be in trouble.
If I go home tonight, can I log on to MSN Messager and expect it to be painfully easy to download all of this week's Xbox 360 releases with just a few clicks?
Hey, if I've got a friend who buys all this week's 360 releases and Rips them into ISO's for me, then I sure as heck could.
That would actually be even legal here. You are allowed to give a copy to your close friends and family. It's the fact that you're sharing it with complete strangers and thousands of them.
I don't buy drugs and I don't deal drugs but if I tell someone who wants drugs where a drug dealer is - that isn't going to land me jail time or a fine. In fact, the police aren't even looking for me. They're looking for the other two guys.
You will actually get arrested and probably charged for that.
I don't think many people (especially non-geeks) really care about file sharing, definitely not as much as free speech and not getting killed by their government. Chinese have a lot more reasons to try circumvent their censorship than if you could just get this MP3 file for free.
I also think filesharing will go on but a little more underground. That's the point - to get most of the people off pirating and to get them to buy instead. If piracy isn't so widespread but only some geeks thing, I doubt it matters as much to RIAA/MPAA than it does now when everyone is doing it.
But they will do so within their circle of friends, not via these massive torrent sites with thousands of other people. Even law here allows you to make a copy to your closest friends and family, and piracy wouldn't be so huge problem that it is now if that was still the way (and before someone jumps in, no you cannot make a facebook app that "intelligently" tries to distribute the files from friend-to-friend or other system like that - intention counts)
Because it's clear what The Pirate Bay's, Mininova's and IsoHunt's intention is, and because the content is 99% copyrighted material with no distribution rights from authors. Google's intention is completely different and they act on removal notices.
After Mininova was ordered to delete all the copyrighted content that was spread illegally, their site basically shut down. Even while they did keep the legal torrents (their distribution system for artists and so on)
If it weren't so blatant that the site is meant for copyright infringement, and 99% of the content wasn't illegally distributed without permission from authors, then you could say its just a service to connect people. Just the same way like if someone exchanges drugs in your mall without you knowing about it, it's not your fault. But if you set up a place where people come to exchange drugs and you know it and are looking at it happening from the side, you will be held responsible.
Can't his site handle DHT instead of.torrent files?
That's not the point. It's quite clear that technical circumvents to law (like the whole.torrent thing) don't work like that. If your intention is to run illegal site you will be held accountable. It's not just exactly about.torrent files, it's about the whole system and purpose.+
Pirate sites will go, and others will replace them, but there is a constant: like death and taxes, piracy will go on.
Once the admins and users will start getting jail time and huge fines more often, I'm sure the amount of people wanting to run such a site decreases dramatically. It's not an endless river.
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
So it's OK to rip off Hollywood but not the independents?
Well the usual argument from pirates is that they don't want to support mainstream hollywood movies but indies. I guess this puts a new perspective to them.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
Is this why many of my friends parents ask them to burn a movie or tv show for them? You think 40-50 year olds with a job wouldn't had bought them otherwise?
the US Copyright Group, on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers and with the encouragement of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. So far, five lawsuits have been filed against tens of thousands of alleged infringers of the films "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D." Here's an example of one of the lawsuits -- over Uwe Boll's "Far Cry."
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
While I know the usual piracy-crowd here on slashdot will mod me down, I'm happy they will do this. Widespread piracy is causing problems. There are already good equivalents so you don't need to resolve to piracy. I'd like to have some good alternative games, and when developers can again take a change and risk in their games, instead of the shit mainstream games. Piracy causes them not to do that.
Um... sure democracies put stronger holds on the populace, they'll even suspend some rights (like, uh, say, the right of a person to not be put in a camp for no reason other than Japanese descent), but put democracy itself on hold? Please! We had elections before and during WWII.
Except that US hasn't ever had a war on its on land besides Independence war. It has always went elsewhere in the world to fight. In that case you can obviously support your own infrastructure, every-day activities and even voting while soldiers are fighting elsewhere.
However you are right on the fact that people are stupid and that is what he means. Like I noted further down in this discussion, democracy is the best government in it that it allows everyone to have their saying (kind of), but people get lazy and don't care about things like environment. This is his point, and while I surely want to keep the kind of democracy system we have, I do see his point.
But they didn't really care for such thing back then, they just needed to get military, technology and other shit done. If the priority was environment, it would be enforced as priority number one.
You cannot really compare governments to monopolistic companies. As it is now, you are free to leave your country and become a citizen of another. It just takes a lot of time and usually the restricting side is the one you're trying to join. Almost no government actually cares if you as a single person remain as their citizen - as soon as you get the other side to give you citizenship, your home country will either go on as usual (you have dual citizenship) or in rare cases you lose your old citizenship (you are now officially and fully a citizen of the country you wanted to join)
So he wants to save a world without Democracy in it?
Well, in terms of saving the world, industrialization and everything else democracy probably isn't the best choice. However, it is the nicest choice for everyone as nobody is supposed to be exploited and can have their saying. The problem is that everyone stops caring and just do whatever they want, and I think that is his point. Personally I rather live in the democracy we have, but I do see his point about the future.
And yes there is a reason to turn it off. To remove it from the list of features that need to be supported going forward.
I'm really surprised that it lasted this long.
There's even a bigger reason than that - the guy mentioned in this summary too exploited the OtherOS feature (with burning the PS3 hardware to cause kernel panic and subsequent escalate to PS3 code) and it would possibly allow piracy on PS3. It's obvious that now Sony will disable that feature from the few geeks to keep the system secure. You can thank this guy for ruining it for everyone.
but there's a lot of pissed off users now with torches just aching to start a blaze.
Which amount to what? 1% or less of the total PS3 owners?
I would say even less. Maybe 0.01%. I would really like this feature but it wont turn me off from PS3 - it's media streaming is superb compared to 360 and generally I feel nicer to play games on it. I didn't buy PS3 to run a Linux - I bought it to play games. If i wanted to run Linux or such, I would had just build such box (like I have).
Slashdot Mirror
Except that neither IsoHunt or it's owner are in US or US citizens - he's Canadian.
Your Spain link is out-of-date too, see this newer one: Judge Orders Blocking of Torrent Sites in Spain. Russia also banned ALL torrent sites and so did China. Where will you go? Somalia?
Why would you need VPN if you're only downloading legit torrents?
Doing it and caring about it as much as risking your life are two different things.
He says that it works in other PDF Readers (well he mentioned one, Foxit) - because he's not exploiting a vulnerability in any of the applications, but the PDF Language itself.
But what vulnerability can be in a data format? Especially if I open it with a viewer that knows no stinkin' JavaScript etc.? GhostView and Xpdf simply say that the file is broken and display what they can.
In this case it's not even vulnerability, it's just interesting way to use the PDF specs to get that result. However as for your question, vulnerabilities aren't in the data formats itself, but in the programs that read them (buffer overflow etc)
But for once Adobe is actually more secure than the better alternative Foxit. Adobe PDF Reader at least warns and asks your permission to run the file, but Fox It does neither one but just happily runs it. That fact made me uninstall Foxit for now at least.
If 99% of Google results were illegal (and on first page on search results) and they if they aided in copyright infringement, I'm quite sure they would be in trouble.
If I go home tonight, can I log on to MSN Messager and expect it to be painfully easy to download all of this week's Xbox 360 releases with just a few clicks?
Hey, if I've got a friend who buys all this week's 360 releases and Rips them into ISO's for me, then I sure as heck could.
That would actually be even legal here. You are allowed to give a copy to your close friends and family. It's the fact that you're sharing it with complete strangers and thousands of them.
I don't buy drugs and I don't deal drugs but if I tell someone who wants drugs where a drug dealer is - that isn't going to land me jail time or a fine. In fact, the police aren't even looking for me. They're looking for the other two guys.
You will actually get arrested and probably charged for that.
I don't think many people (especially non-geeks) really care about file sharing, definitely not as much as free speech and not getting killed by their government. Chinese have a lot more reasons to try circumvent their censorship than if you could just get this MP3 file for free.
I also think filesharing will go on but a little more underground. That's the point - to get most of the people off pirating and to get them to buy instead. If piracy isn't so widespread but only some geeks thing, I doubt it matters as much to RIAA/MPAA than it does now when everyone is doing it.
The owner is already in Canada and is Canadian.
But they will do so within their circle of friends, not via these massive torrent sites with thousands of other people. Even law here allows you to make a copy to your closest friends and family, and piracy wouldn't be so huge problem that it is now if that was still the way (and before someone jumps in, no you cannot make a facebook app that "intelligently" tries to distribute the files from friend-to-friend or other system like that - intention counts)
Because it's clear what The Pirate Bay's, Mininova's and IsoHunt's intention is, and because the content is 99% copyrighted material with no distribution rights from authors. Google's intention is completely different and they act on removal notices.
After Mininova was ordered to delete all the copyrighted content that was spread illegally, their site basically shut down. Even while they did keep the legal torrents (their distribution system for artists and so on)
If it weren't so blatant that the site is meant for copyright infringement, and 99% of the content wasn't illegally distributed without permission from authors, then you could say its just a service to connect people. Just the same way like if someone exchanges drugs in your mall without you knowing about it, it's not your fault. But if you set up a place where people come to exchange drugs and you know it and are looking at it happening from the side, you will be held responsible.
Can't his site handle DHT instead of .torrent files?
That's not the point. It's quite clear that technical circumvents to law (like the whole .torrent thing) don't work like that. If your intention is to run illegal site you will be held accountable. It's not just exactly about .torrent files, it's about the whole system and purpose.+
Pirate sites will go, and others will replace them, but there is a constant: like death and taxes, piracy will go on.
Once the admins and users will start getting jail time and huge fines more often, I'm sure the amount of people wanting to run such a site decreases dramatically. It's not an endless river.
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
So it's OK to rip off Hollywood but not the independents?
Well the usual argument from pirates is that they don't want to support mainstream hollywood movies but indies. I guess this puts a new perspective to them.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
Is this why many of my friends parents ask them to burn a movie or tv show for them? You think 40-50 year olds with a job wouldn't had bought them otherwise?
Also, please read the article for once:
the US Copyright Group, on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers and with the encouragement of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. So far, five lawsuits have been filed against tens of thousands of alleged infringers of the films "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D." Here's an example of one of the lawsuits -- over Uwe Boll's "Far Cry."
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
While I know the usual piracy-crowd here on slashdot will mod me down, I'm happy they will do this. Widespread piracy is causing problems. There are already good equivalents so you don't need to resolve to piracy. I'd like to have some good alternative games, and when developers can again take a change and risk in their games, instead of the shit mainstream games. Piracy causes them not to do that.
Um... sure democracies put stronger holds on the populace, they'll even suspend some rights (like, uh, say, the right of a person to not be put in a camp for no reason other than Japanese descent), but put democracy itself on hold? Please! We had elections before and during WWII.
Except that US hasn't ever had a war on its on land besides Independence war. It has always went elsewhere in the world to fight. In that case you can obviously support your own infrastructure, every-day activities and even voting while soldiers are fighting elsewhere.
However you are right on the fact that people are stupid and that is what he means. Like I noted further down in this discussion, democracy is the best government in it that it allows everyone to have their saying (kind of), but people get lazy and don't care about things like environment. This is his point, and while I surely want to keep the kind of democracy system we have, I do see his point.
It's like the Linux vs Windows battle. Every nerd knows Linux would be the better choice for everyone, but the public chooses Windows for convenience.
But they didn't really care for such thing back then, they just needed to get military, technology and other shit done. If the priority was environment, it would be enforced as priority number one.
You cannot really compare governments to monopolistic companies. As it is now, you are free to leave your country and become a citizen of another. It just takes a lot of time and usually the restricting side is the one you're trying to join. Almost no government actually cares if you as a single person remain as their citizen - as soon as you get the other side to give you citizenship, your home country will either go on as usual (you have dual citizenship) or in rare cases you lose your old citizenship (you are now officially and fully a citizen of the country you wanted to join)
So he wants to save a world without Democracy in it?
Well, in terms of saving the world, industrialization and everything else democracy probably isn't the best choice. However, it is the nicest choice for everyone as nobody is supposed to be exploited and can have their saying. The problem is that everyone stops caring and just do whatever they want, and I think that is his point. Personally I rather live in the democracy we have, but I do see his point about the future.
And yes there is a reason to turn it off. To remove it from the list of features that need to be supported going forward.
I'm really surprised that it lasted this long.
There's even a bigger reason than that - the guy mentioned in this summary too exploited the OtherOS feature (with burning the PS3 hardware to cause kernel panic and subsequent escalate to PS3 code) and it would possibly allow piracy on PS3. It's obvious that now Sony will disable that feature from the few geeks to keep the system secure. You can thank this guy for ruining it for everyone.
but there's a lot of pissed off users now with torches just aching to start a blaze.
Which amount to what? 1% or less of the total PS3 owners?
I would say even less. Maybe 0.01%. I would really like this feature but it wont turn me off from PS3 - it's media streaming is superb compared to 360 and generally I feel nicer to play games on it. I didn't buy PS3 to run a Linux - I bought it to play games. If i wanted to run Linux or such, I would had just build such box (like I have).