Before, you would use software as a tool to increase your productivity. With new Microsoft Irony 2007 you spend the majority of your time learning how our complicated user-interface works, and less time on your original task! Brilliant isn't it? After all, that's why Microsoft Irony was designed.
New upcoming features in Microsoft Irony 2008!
Look forward to even more ways to waste precious time with our update to the popular Microsoft Irony 2007. With our 2008 version we introduce Clippy's grandson, Dippy, who will dance across the work area at random times based on the detectable rate of your typing: the more you type, the more Dippy dances! But look out! Dippy will steal your work and put it in the trash can! Also, check out the new "bling bling" option where you can browse through tens of thousands of graphic icons to customize the amazing Microsoft Irony 2008 user interface so that nobody else but you will understand how it works!
Try Microsoft Irony today! Wholly endorsed by the Federal Office of Emergency Management!
You've obviously never run PhpBB, or any other popular system that requires registration to post content.
The most effective server-side solution is keyword blacklisting. User registration is easily bypassed. However, IP blacklisting is also a very good option and has the added benefit of putting pressure on the offending ISP to control the illegal and unethical behavior of its customers.
The reason why there is spamming is because the ISP is irresponsible and doesn't enforce its own terms of service among its users. In lieu of rogue ISPs (which also include domestic ones like Comcast, AT&T and others) the only realistic alternative is to wholesale ban their IP space until they get their act together and start clamping down on the illegal activities of their customer nodes.
It sucks this has to be done, but there's no other way, short of civil/criminal prosecution, to make them take responsibility for the behavior of their customers who are wreaking havoc on the rest of the Internet.
This is only a problem for people who are violating one of the primary security policies in the first place, and that's putting your contact list in Gmail in the first place. While Google may claim to not be evil now, there's no guarantee at any time in the future, all the information they collect from you and on you won't be given or sold to other entities or otherwise exploited for nefarious purposes. In fact, it's pretty much an inevitability this will happen, so it's not smart in the first place to store much information on their systems when more secure alternatives already exist.
Actually four, including Romantsh...But than, calling the Swiss-German, German...is almost insulting the Swiss. Seriously! Except that, the Germans don't understand it, perhaps at most a few words here and there.
It doesn't take much to insult the Swiss, seeing as they're so fiercely independent. But it was my Swiss friend in Switzerland who characterized Rmantsh as "Swiss-German" and an analysis of the language shows it is basically some sort of superset of German, bastardized by the Swiss.
FYI, Swiss has no native language that isn't a homogenization of other languages (Swiss-German being the closest to their own langauge, which does differ in many ways from traditional German). The country has three distinct areas where the native language is either Italian, German or French.
The content is provided with restrictions. That's the way web sites work. Maybe this whole "web" thing is new to you? Maybe this whole "copyright" thing is new to you and you don't understand these concepts. Maybe you don't understand if you buy a book from the book store, you can't make 10,000 copies of it, put your own name on it and sell it. Why? Because it's called "stealing". It's copyright infringement.
You are desperately holding onto a very narrow view of what this issue involves, and your view is not what happened in this case, nor what the judge was evaluating. You have a weird perfect scenario in your head that doesn't resemble this issue or the facts of the case, or anything even remotely relevant to the argue over deep linking. I've wasted too much time trying to reason with you when it's undoubtedly pointless.
Some anti-spyware blocks the sending of the referer which would restrict legit users.
Besides, it's super easy to hack around a referer restriction.
Simplying putting up "Copyright - all rights reserved" or other information is acceptable enough to let people who know how to read, that this content has restrictions that should be respected.
You can rationalize all you want. But you have a very naive, ignorant idea of what does and does not constitute theft. Luckily for the rest of responsible society, the law isn't based around goofy, erroneous, irrational ideas such as yours.
Just because something, tangible or not, is ACCESSIBLE, does not give you the right to use it for whatever purpose you desire without restriction. If you can't figure this out, please make sure you're sterile so whatever flawed genetic code you have does not propagate. Thanks!
So, by your logic the government's sole job should be to prevent the possibility of so-called "theft" (which, your definition is actually incorrect, since to steal something, the thief would have to gain access to it by means other than the owner's approved channels, which isn't the case: the owner of the content in this case made said content publicly available, and thus no stealing took place) of revenue from any individual or company. You sir, are insane.
How come no Hitler reference? You must be slipping.
You should try your theory in real life. Here's what you need to do. Go into a supermarket and go to the produce section. Look! Nothing is locked up! So just start taking produce and eating it. Have a seat. Start eating. There isn't a sign anywhere that says you can't do it, so it must be OK. You "gained access" to the produce through "approved channels" therefore what's the problem? It's there for eating. You obviously can't imagine any other reason these people would let you look at the produce freely unless they wanted you to eat it. You don't see anyone around asking for money near the produce. Therefore, it's well within your right to just munch away. Knock yourself out Einstein. You may have figured out the solution to world hunger!
Deep linking has nothing to do with the size of the lock. THERE IS NO LOCK. If I can get to some content simply by asking the webserver for it (ie no http auth, no cookie, no nothing, just an HTTP GET) then the "lock" you speak of does not exist.
So what you're saying is, if there is "no lock" meaning no facility to make the content restrictive, then it's not stealing? That's a fair assumption, but what constitutes "a lock?"
Would you agree if someone has referer protection, and someone bypasses this, that would be theft?
Well, how is that any different from a copyright notice at the bottom of every page, or a copyright on the content itself which says "this content cannot be republished without permission". That's "a lock" too. It makes it quite clear the content is not to be freely deep linked.
Referer tag checking is not acceptable any more as a deterrent to this. Many anti-spyware software inhibits the referer tag. If you demand a certain referer tag, your web page will improperly display to a large amount of legitimate users.
Digital information is different from other property. The cost of reproducing digital information is near-zero, the cost of reproducing physical property is non-zero. Digital information can be shared/given to other without depriving the original holder of it.
Irrelevant.
If you think this is a good idea, then stop going to school, quit your day job and go around taking pictures and videotaping other stuff in public. Then re-sell that stuff as if it were your own. After all, it's only "digital information". It's not "hurting anybody". So "What's the problem?"
Theft is not limited to tangible property. Intellectual property can also be stolen.
Imagine if you were Charles Schulz and you created the Charlie Brown comic strip. You spent money to protect your idea, and got trademarks and copyrights. Then some wanker on Slashdot figures, since he's not taking anything physical, he sees no problem with drawing his own version of your cartoon characters, publishing these in a book, and exploiting the notoriety and intellectual property you've worked so hard to develop. If you cared about your work, you'd sue his ass off, and he'd deserve it, because despite the fact that he didn't physically steal anything from you, he has taken your intellectual property and exploited it for his own personal gain. That Slashdot wanker would be morally, as well as legally wrong, even as he ignorantly rationalized that since it was intangible, and you let him read your comics in a public place, it was perfectly OK.
Explain that one to your college professor, when you plaigerize some content that "was in a public place, so it's mine dehrrrrrrrrrrrr" See how far you get.
This is not a passive process. If you take a picture of the Coca-Cola logo that's in a public place, see how far you're going to get if you stick that logo on a box of gum and try to sell it. See if your "Hey, that logo was in a public place so I can use it..." excuse will work.
Better yet, go someplace and listen to a band perform. Pull out your telephone and record their show. Then produce some CDs or DVDs of their performance and start selling them. See how far you get. See how much the band appreciates you using their material to make money for yourself without their permission.
But wait! It was a public place... I can do whatever I want with it.
The argument you're making is simply: "I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."
This argument is simply... stupid.
That argument is stupid. But that's not the argument I'm making.
What part of stealing do you not understand? Do you know what stealing means? It doesn't mean "I don't like it." Who's being stupid?
If I'm a photographer, and I put pictures that I took up on my web site, that cost me time and money to produce, that I own the copyright to, that I do NOT give anyone else permission to republish without my approval. And you deep link a picture from my web site onto your page of "great cool wallpaper for free" that you're using to attract traffic so you can make money with google ads, you're stealing from me. What part of this do you not understand?
I weep for the future when kids these days have no concept of responsibility.
You could argue their image service may possibly be "deep linking" but I bet Google is actively trying to find ways to identify content that is less restricted so it doesn't infringe upon anyone's copyrights. And even with Google images, they link to the referring page directly. It's really ignorant and naive to generalize deep linking with other forms of legitimate linking.
The proper defense against deep linking is technical.
WRONG.
Just like the proper defense against spam is technical right? If you don't like spam, it's the fault of the ISP because they can't filter it well enough right? Never mind that spammers steal resources, infect computers, violate privacy, and drive up the cost of everyone's service and drive down the performance. It's the fault of the providers for not implementing tighter security in lieu of enforcing legitimate laws regarding theft?
Your rationale is way off.
Stealing is stealing. If you take someone else's restricted content and exploit it, that's theft. We're not talking about linking to someone else's web site. People with half a brain know what's going on. There's a difference between linking to someone's site and taking their content, repackaging it on your own, and using their hard work to make money for yourself.
Technical solutions are nice, but legal solutions are necessary. That's the only way the spam problem will ever be solved... when they start putting those spammer criminals in jail, things will improve.. long before the 1,987,300th incarnation of anti-spam filtration appears to half-ass work.
Stealing is stealing. It amazes me that people seem to think digital information is somehow different from property in other formats... of course everyone changes their tune when they get ripped off themselves. Hypocrites.
There is no difference. There is no such thing as a 'deep link', a URL is a URL is a URL.
Bullshit.
We all know what deep linking is. I assume those that are protesting this "unfair" ruling are probably actively engaged in stealing third party content and have a vested interest in promoting misinformation on this issue.
If you direct link to someone else's hosted, copyrighted, content, against their terms of service, re-packaging their content under your own brand/identity, you know you're doing something wrong. It's called "deep linking".. You're taking content outside the original context. If you link to an image of someone else's photography and put it on a non-related site, and that photo is copyrighted and not published in such a manner as to give you such rights, you are breaking the law. It's called deep linking.
This isn't some goofy frivolous legal issue. Content providers have a right to have their hard work protected from overt exploitation if they decide to share it in some part with the online community.
I'm really amazed at some of the ignorant responses here. Just because something is accessible doesn't mean that gives you permission to steal and exploit it.
Your response is analogous to the idea that just because my bicycle is on my own property, clearly labeled and locked up, that it's my own fault it was stolen because I didn't have a bigger lock.
People who deep link know exactly what they're doing. They're stealing content from other sites for their own gain. Regardless of whether or not the hosting site has elaborate referer restrictions or other crap, is irrelevant.
Perhaps what Nintendo understands that no other maker does, is that the last two generations of consoles have cultivated a different kind of consumer/user than previous generations: the "twitch players" which represent a tiny portion of the potential market. Why have so many FPS and violent games come out? Why are developers pandering to this group? I suspect because these games are easy to crank out and don't require nearly as much creativity. As a result, most people don't really give a shit about the "console wars." I know I don't. My last console was the N64 which I abandoned after the dearth of quality games (other than the core Nintendo titles).
It's all about the software. It always has been. The console that has the best software will win. It doesn't matter what the hardware specs are. Great software can compensate for inferior hardware -- though most of today's developers don't seem to understand that. I saw games that ran in 16K of RAM that had more longevity that today's multi-gigabyte monstrosities.
I've been involved in cases like this before.. the rights this guy has to the domain have to do with what he's been doing with it. If he had wargames.com relating to any content from the original movie, he could risk losing the domain. If however, he had something unrelated to the movie, he has a strong case because these are two standard English words and MGM isn't the first entity to use them.
Does anybody really think the notion of an intelligent computer is realistic any more? I mean, it's believable that a computer won't cooperate with you, but having a mind of its own and actually getting things done? It seems that the popularity of Windows OS has pretty much made such a concept pretty unbelievable among average people these days.
Now maybe when the computer was a mysterious device that few people used, could you get away with portraying them as dubious, intelligent entities, but is that a believable plot device nowadays? This kind of premise should have been abandoned about the same time movies about high school kids building sentient robots was abandoned.
I suspect, like most late remakes, this will fall flat.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Irony changes the way you work!
Before, you would use software as a tool to increase your productivity. With new Microsoft Irony 2007 you spend the majority of your time learning how our complicated user-interface works, and less time on your original task! Brilliant isn't it? After all, that's why Microsoft Irony was designed.
New upcoming features in Microsoft Irony 2008!
Look forward to even more ways to waste precious time with our update to the popular Microsoft Irony 2007. With our 2008 version we introduce Clippy's grandson, Dippy, who will dance across the work area at random times based on the detectable rate of your typing: the more you type, the more Dippy dances! But look out! Dippy will steal your work and put it in the trash can! Also, check out the new "bling bling" option where you can browse through tens of thousands of graphic icons to customize the amazing Microsoft Irony 2008 user interface so that nobody else but you will understand how it works!
Try Microsoft Irony today! Wholly endorsed by the Federal Office of Emergency Management!
I'm optimistic the Earth will recover from the damage mankind has done to it. Though I'm not as optimistic about whether mankind can recover.
You've obviously never run PhpBB, or any other popular system that requires registration to post content.
The most effective server-side solution is keyword blacklisting. User registration is easily bypassed. However, IP blacklisting is also a very good option and has the added benefit of putting pressure on the offending ISP to control the illegal and unethical behavior of its customers.
The reason why there is spamming is because the ISP is irresponsible and doesn't enforce its own terms of service among its users. In lieu of rogue ISPs (which also include domestic ones like Comcast, AT&T and others) the only realistic alternative is to wholesale ban their IP space until they get their act together and start clamping down on the illegal activities of their customer nodes.
It sucks this has to be done, but there's no other way, short of civil/criminal prosecution, to make them take responsibility for the behavior of their customers who are wreaking havoc on the rest of the Internet.
This is only a problem for people who are violating one of the primary security policies in the first place, and that's putting your contact list in Gmail in the first place. While Google may claim to not be evil now, there's no guarantee at any time in the future, all the information they collect from you and on you won't be given or sold to other entities or otherwise exploited for nefarious purposes. In fact, it's pretty much an inevitability this will happen, so it's not smart in the first place to store much information on their systems when more secure alternatives already exist.
Actually four, including Romantsh...But than, calling the Swiss-German, German...is almost insulting the Swiss. Seriously! Except that, the Germans don't understand it, perhaps at most a few words here and there.
It doesn't take much to insult the Swiss, seeing as they're so fiercely independent. But it was my Swiss friend in Switzerland who characterized Rmantsh as "Swiss-German" and an analysis of the language shows it is basically some sort of superset of German, bastardized by the Swiss.
FYI, Swiss has no native language that isn't a homogenization of other languages (Swiss-German being the closest to their own langauge, which does differ in many ways from traditional German). The country has three distinct areas where the native language is either Italian, German or French.
The content is provided with restrictions. That's the way web sites work. Maybe this whole "web" thing is new to you? Maybe this whole "copyright" thing is new to you and you don't understand these concepts. Maybe you don't understand if you buy a book from the book store, you can't make 10,000 copies of it, put your own name on it and sell it. Why? Because it's called "stealing". It's copyright infringement.
You are desperately holding onto a very narrow view of what this issue involves, and your view is not what happened in this case, nor what the judge was evaluating. You have a weird perfect scenario in your head that doesn't resemble this issue or the facts of the case, or anything even remotely relevant to the argue over deep linking. I've wasted too much time trying to reason with you when it's undoubtedly pointless.
Referers DO NOT WORK.
Some anti-spyware blocks the sending of the referer which would restrict legit users.
Besides, it's super easy to hack around a referer restriction.
Simplying putting up "Copyright - all rights reserved" or other information is acceptable enough to let people who know how to read, that this content has restrictions that should be respected.
You can rationalize all you want. But you have a very naive, ignorant idea of what does and does not constitute theft. Luckily for the rest of responsible society, the law isn't based around goofy, erroneous, irrational ideas such as yours.
Just because something, tangible or not, is ACCESSIBLE, does not give you the right to use it for whatever purpose you desire without restriction. If you can't figure this out, please make sure you're sterile so whatever flawed genetic code you have does not propagate. Thanks!
So, by your logic the government's sole job should be to prevent the possibility of so-called "theft" (which, your definition is actually incorrect, since to steal something, the thief would have to gain access to it by means other than the owner's approved channels, which isn't the case: the owner of the content in this case made said content publicly available, and thus no stealing took place) of revenue from any individual or company. You sir, are insane.
How come no Hitler reference? You must be slipping.
You should try your theory in real life. Here's what you need to do. Go into a supermarket and go to the produce section. Look! Nothing is locked up! So just start taking produce and eating it. Have a seat. Start eating. There isn't a sign anywhere that says you can't do it, so it must be OK. You "gained access" to the produce through "approved channels" therefore what's the problem? It's there for eating. You obviously can't imagine any other reason these people would let you look at the produce freely unless they wanted you to eat it. You don't see anyone around asking for money near the produce. Therefore, it's well within your right to just munch away. Knock yourself out Einstein. You may have figured out the solution to world hunger!
Deep linking has nothing to do with the size of the lock. THERE IS NO LOCK. If I can get to some content simply by asking the webserver for it (ie no http auth, no cookie, no nothing, just an HTTP GET) then the "lock" you speak of does not exist.
So what you're saying is, if there is "no lock" meaning no facility to make the content restrictive, then it's not stealing? That's a fair assumption, but what constitutes "a lock?"
Would you agree if someone has referer protection, and someone bypasses this, that would be theft?
Well, how is that any different from a copyright notice at the bottom of every page, or a copyright on the content itself which says "this content cannot be republished without permission". That's "a lock" too. It makes it quite clear the content is not to be freely deep linked.
Referer tag checking is not acceptable any more as a deterrent to this. Many anti-spyware software inhibits the referer tag. If you demand a certain referer tag, your web page will improperly display to a large amount of legitimate users.
Digital information is different from other property. The cost of reproducing digital information is near-zero, the cost of reproducing physical property is non-zero. Digital information can be shared/given to other without depriving the original holder of it.
Irrelevant.
If you think this is a good idea, then stop going to school, quit your day job and go around taking pictures and videotaping other stuff in public. Then re-sell that stuff as if it were your own. After all, it's only "digital information". It's not "hurting anybody". So "What's the problem?"
Theft is not limited to tangible property. Intellectual property can also be stolen.
Imagine if you were Charles Schulz and you created the Charlie Brown comic strip. You spent money to protect your idea, and got trademarks and copyrights. Then some wanker on Slashdot figures, since he's not taking anything physical, he sees no problem with drawing his own version of your cartoon characters, publishing these in a book, and exploiting the notoriety and intellectual property you've worked so hard to develop. If you cared about your work, you'd sue his ass off, and he'd deserve it, because despite the fact that he didn't physically steal anything from you, he has taken your intellectual property and exploited it for his own personal gain. That Slashdot wanker would be morally, as well as legally wrong, even as he ignorantly rationalized that since it was intangible, and you let him read your comics in a public place, it was perfectly OK.
It's not ok. It's called stealing.
Bad analogy.
Explain that one to your college professor, when you plaigerize some content that "was in a public place, so it's mine dehrrrrrrrrrrrr" See how far you get.
This is not a passive process. If you take a picture of the Coca-Cola logo that's in a public place, see how far you're going to get if you stick that logo on a box of gum and try to sell it. See if your "Hey, that logo was in a public place so I can use it..." excuse will work.
Better yet, go someplace and listen to a band perform. Pull out your telephone and record their show. Then produce some CDs or DVDs of their performance and start selling them. See how far you get. See how much the band appreciates you using their material to make money for yourself without their permission.
But wait! It was a public place... I can do whatever I want with it.
NO YOU CAN'T.
The argument you're making is simply:
"I don't like it, therefore it should be illegal."
This argument is simply... stupid.
That argument is stupid. But that's not the argument I'm making.
What part of stealing do you not understand? Do you know what stealing means? It doesn't mean "I don't like it." Who's being stupid?
If I'm a photographer, and I put pictures that I took up on my web site, that cost me time and money to produce, that I own the copyright to, that I do NOT give anyone else permission to republish without my approval. And you deep link a picture from my web site onto your page of "great cool wallpaper for free" that you're using to attract traffic so you can make money with google ads, you're stealing from me. What part of this do you not understand?
I weep for the future when kids these days have no concept of responsibility.
Google links to site providers directly.
You could argue their image service may possibly be "deep linking" but I bet Google is actively trying to find ways to identify content that is less restricted so it doesn't infringe upon anyone's copyrights. And even with Google images, they link to the referring page directly. It's really ignorant and naive to generalize deep linking with other forms of legitimate linking.
The proper defense against deep linking is technical.
WRONG.
Just like the proper defense against spam is technical right? If you don't like spam, it's the fault of the ISP because they can't filter it well enough right? Never mind that spammers steal resources, infect computers, violate privacy, and drive up the cost of everyone's service and drive down the performance. It's the fault of the providers for not implementing tighter security in lieu of enforcing legitimate laws regarding theft?
Your rationale is way off.
Stealing is stealing. If you take someone else's restricted content and exploit it, that's theft. We're not talking about linking to someone else's web site. People with half a brain know what's going on. There's a difference between linking to someone's site and taking their content, repackaging it on your own, and using their hard work to make money for yourself.
Technical solutions are nice, but legal solutions are necessary. That's the only way the spam problem will ever be solved... when they start putting those spammer criminals in jail, things will improve.. long before the 1,987,300th incarnation of anti-spam filtration appears to half-ass work.
Stealing is stealing. It amazes me that people seem to think digital information is somehow different from property in other formats... of course everyone changes their tune when they get ripped off themselves. Hypocrites.
There is no difference. There is no such thing as a 'deep link', a URL is a URL is a URL.
Bullshit.
We all know what deep linking is. I assume those that are protesting this "unfair" ruling are probably actively engaged in stealing third party content and have a vested interest in promoting misinformation on this issue.
If you direct link to someone else's hosted, copyrighted, content, against their terms of service, re-packaging their content under your own brand/identity, you know you're doing something wrong. It's called "deep linking".. You're taking content outside the original context. If you link to an image of someone else's photography and put it on a non-related site, and that photo is copyrighted and not published in such a manner as to give you such rights, you are breaking the law. It's called deep linking.
This isn't some goofy frivolous legal issue. Content providers have a right to have their hard work protected from overt exploitation if they decide to share it in some part with the online community.
I'm really amazed at some of the ignorant responses here. Just because something is accessible doesn't mean that gives you permission to steal and exploit it.
Stealing is stealing.
Your response is analogous to the idea that just because my bicycle is on my own property, clearly labeled and locked up, that it's my own fault it was stolen because I didn't have a bigger lock.
People who deep link know exactly what they're doing. They're stealing content from other sites for their own gain. Regardless of whether or not the hosting site has elaborate referer restrictions or other crap, is irrelevant.
Stealing is stealing.
Perhaps what Nintendo understands that no other maker does, is that the last two generations of consoles have cultivated a different kind of consumer/user than previous generations: the "twitch players" which represent a tiny portion of the potential market. Why have so many FPS and violent games come out? Why are developers pandering to this group? I suspect because these games are easy to crank out and don't require nearly as much creativity. As a result, most people don't really give a shit about the "console wars." I know I don't. My last console was the N64 which I abandoned after the dearth of quality games (other than the core Nintendo titles).
It's all about the software. It always has been. The console that has the best software will win. It doesn't matter what the hardware specs are. Great software can compensate for inferior hardware -- though most of today's developers don't seem to understand that. I saw games that ran in 16K of RAM that had more longevity that today's multi-gigabyte monstrosities.
I've been involved in cases like this before.. the rights this guy has to the domain have to do with what he's been doing with it. If he had wargames.com relating to any content from the original movie, he could risk losing the domain. If however, he had something unrelated to the movie, he has a strong case because these are two standard English words and MGM isn't the first entity to use them.
Just once I want to see a movie like this realistically played out.
The entire defense department goes on red alert, disaster is barely averted.
At the end of the movie, the president finally finds out - he was indisposed reading to a group of elementary school kids and missed the whole thing.
Does anybody really think the notion of an intelligent computer is realistic any more? I mean, it's believable that a computer won't cooperate with you, but having a mind of its own and actually getting things done? It seems that the popularity of Windows OS has pretty much made such a concept pretty unbelievable among average people these days.
Now maybe when the computer was a mysterious device that few people used, could you get away with portraying them as dubious, intelligent entities, but is that a believable plot device nowadays? This kind of premise should have been abandoned about the same time movies about high school kids building sentient robots was abandoned.
I suspect, like most late remakes, this will fall flat.