Re:No reason to celebrate...
on
Euro DMCA Fails
·
· Score: 2
I don't mind if they copyprotect it with CSS2 or whatever. But if I'm banned from buying DVDs because I'm in the wrong zone, then they are just pissing me off.
CSS is encryption, not copy protection. Encyryption doesn't stop anything from being copied. The entire point of CSS is for region encoding, forcing you to watch commercials, and making sure the DVD will only work on approved players.
If you believe in the free market, then there is nothing inherently wrong with advertising in any medium
So, if there is a free market, then I would be allowed to walk in your house and staple fliers to your wall? I would be allowed to fill a dumptruck with pamphlets and spill them all on your front lawn? I don't think so. A free market doesn't mean property rights go out the window.
Maybe this was their whole intent in the first place. After all it stirred up discussion about GNU. That's all RMS wants. He doesn't care if any GNU projects work. It's all about fanaticism.;-)
There is a kernel level patch so that nothing can be executed in the stack, but a lot of people don't seem to want it. Actually, I think there are two competing patches. One of them is called Openwall.
There are also libraries to combat this sort of problem as well. Such as the one another poster listed...
When I'm sitting there trying to figure out where to put everything I need to run the application and store its data, there is not one single standard in the *NIX world.
There is: the etc/ directory is for global configuration data./etc/skel/ is for the default user config. The user's home directory (aka ~ aka $HOME--often/home/username) contains his/her data and config files. lib/ is for shared libraries. shared/ is for the program's data. bin/ is for the programs executables. I believe the "shared" directory is a new concept (at least to Linux), everyone used to put their data into lib.
The users config files are usually named as a dot, the program's name then "rc" tacked on the end. If the program's name was bar, then it'd be ".barrc" in the home directory. Realise that anything starting with a period in Linux/Unix works like a hidden file in DOS/Windows--ls/dir won't display it unless you use the "-a" option. So looking at a listing of your home directory, you'll only see the data files instead of the clutter of all your config ones too.
If you wish to backup your general settings in Linux, storing/etc,/usr/etc, and/usr/local/etc should do it. The problem is not all programs written for Unix/Linux will conform to this standard. For example, Jed and lynx put their configuration files into the lib directory. Just like some Windows programs store their settings in ini files under the C:\Program Files directory...
Having three different places (/,/usr, and/usr/local) for everything may seem strange, but there is a reason behind it. Everything in/etc,/bin,/sbin,/lib are supposed to be the basic critical programs and system settings./usr is for the programs used by most everyone in your organization and is often mounted read only from the network./usr/local would be mounted on the computer's hard drive and programs added for the user(s) of that specific computer.
You may think the registry is a good idea, but it is just a poorly designed clone of the Unix way. Same goes for the "My Documents" folder vs the/home directory. Just proves the old saying "anyone who doesn't understand Unix is doomed to reimplement it poorly."
I think the right approch would be to convince the big game developers to use common standards such as OpenGL to write their games. That way it should be trivial to port the program to other OSs. If they just had to recompile to create binaries for Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, or BeOS, then I think we'd see many more ports than we do now.
DisneyCo owns trademark on PINOCCHIO only for dolls.
That is one of the more lucrative markets for merchandise based upon the book. The book is about a doll (yeah, yeah really a puppet) that comes to life--unless what I've been lead to believe is wrong. I never read the book myself.
More likely on WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Of course, they have no grounds to prevent the sale of AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE brand video games based on the QUAKE III ARENA brand graphics engine.
This is the situation that made me notice the issue. I visited one of American McGee's sites once, and the site said Disney was trying to sue them over trademark infringement. I can't find any references to it now, so I can only suppose Disney dropped the suit, but think of the implications. What if that was an open source or freeware project? They might just give in because they have no money for lawyers.
The only person who should have the right to trademark that name is the author of the popular book. At least for markets related to that book and things talked about in the book--assuming that Pinocchio is not a common name or some other business trademarked it before the book was published.
This sort of thing is an obvious example of abusing the trademark system. Trademarks are intended to keep shady people from selling shoddy products by claiming they represent a well established or well known business. It's not so that shady businesses can claim they own a name or word they didn't even come up with and sue everyone who uses it. I remember stories of people trademarking the name of an old popular singer and keeping the original singer from using his/her own name. I remember the stories of Sun trying to sue coffee vendors on the web because they used the name "Java". I remember hearing about McDonald's fast food suing the owner of a sandwitch shop she named after herself (as many people do).
The use of Pinocchio for things like modem cards, pizza and tomatoes are obviously tied to the book--at least not to my knowledge.
I'm not sure how or if the trademark system can really be fixed to cure this problem--especially considering issues like this are a bit subjective. I almose wonder if it would work better the trademark office assigned some sort of unique company id, and that would be used to distinguish different businesses. They can calll their product whatever they want, and you look at the trademark id to know if a product is made by the company you want to buy from.
The Walt Disney Company does not own the rights to the novel Pinocchio or to the name "Pinocchio".
Your post was great, but I'd like to point out that Disney has a trademark on Pinocchio. Just look it up at the US Trademark Office. (Use TESS to search.) Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland. I don't think it's right, but it appears the trademark office does...
Your comparison with the "12 year old with a vid card" and movies is not that much different than someone with a printing press and books. The reason everyone doesn't mass copy books all the time is because copyright laws are enforced in this area.
People use P2P to infringe copyrights because the copyright laws are not enforced against them--the media companies don't seem to want it. If people who did this paid fines and/or were sent to jail, the P2P copyright infringement would nearly stop. DMCA complaints don't cause discouragement for people who don't respect copyright law--it's just an inconvenience. DRM systems will not stop them either.
Just think if store owners had policies against prosecuting shoplifters because they do not want their "valued customers" in jail. Don't you think shoplifting would increase? What if these owners started suing backpack manufacturers, because they say the manufacturers contributed to shoplifting. Would you think their actions vaild? What if they tried to get laws passed saying all automobiles had to be equipped with an "anti-shoplifting" system? A system that detects store inventory tags, and only allows in products which are marked as paid for. You couldn't transport bread you baked yourself because you can't acquire any tags, but that's just one minor inconvenience to stop shoplifting!
She gives five stars to a men's electric razor on October 14.
She gives five stars to _another_ men's electric razor on November 26.
I had a girlfriend like this once. Razors kept breaking. She just gave up and grew a beard. She never lived down the Sasquatch nickname, but kissing her tickled.;-)
You are wrong. Nobody died. I got a copy and I remember it clearly.
First the hobbits gather in a forest with talking trees. They are met by the Faerie Princess of the Two Towers and her nekkid girly attendants. The Faerie Princess takes off Frodo's clothes and they start going at it. Soon it just turns into a big, hour long orgy with singing trees.
Sam and one of the attendants almost drowned in...ummm...bodily fluid, but no one died.
My friends insist it's not the real movie--just some pr0n called "The Two Towers", but they don't know what they're talking about.;-)
I don't think this story is a lie. It sounds to me the movie studios have just as much problem protecting their copyrighted material inside their own organization. Why else would we get these movies released from illegitimate sources before the movie even comes out?
...and they want a censorship and control system (aka DRM) placed on the general public? It sounds to me that won't solve their copyright infringement problems at all. More likely the "pirates" will steal the footage before any DRM control is placed on it. Moreover they will equally be able to steal or aquire all the software / equipment / DRM keys needed to make their content appear with valid watermarks. The only ones who won't be able to publish are the legitimate everyday person who has been making "intellectual property" since the beginning of history.
Maybe congress needs to pass a law to increase the "security" of movie studios. (and hopefully put them out of business in the process);-)
Where in the world did this come from? This is hardly relevant.
It is relevant. Statements such as "The Department of Homeland Security sees wireless networking technology as a terrorist threat." and 'If you're going to get broken into... we're going to start regulating,' and "Clarke has stressed wireless access points as a national security threat." is where this came from.
This risk will be there no matter what.
That was my whole point. Banning WiFi (or making it so restricted it's useless) won't make the internet any more secure.
I'm talking about the casual Internet abuser here, not a hard-core terrorist.
Yes, but the story was talking about hard core terrorists and saying that is why "homeland security" may want to impose restrictions on wireless networks. Or are you saying something should be banned just because some teenage vandal may abuse it? I guess the paint industry is in big trouble!
Or are you saying that we should give them whatever promiscuous Wi-Fi networks they want so they don't break in to our homes and torture us for Internet access?
No, I'm saying it would be pointless to "secure" all access points to the internet. Most of them aren't even inside the US. Seriously, what do you want? Require a special license to access the internet? Use a DRM censorship system to make sure no one is sending unapproved data or using unapproved programs? Block off the United States' network from the rest of the world? I suppose that is the only way to make you think everyone is traceable and can't do anything illegal on the inter^H^H^Htranet.
What if the terrorists steal the DRM key or find an expliot in the DRM system? Everyone would then be just as vulnerable--if not more so. If the DRM system is mandated everywere, one small exploit or key in the wrong hands could allow a worm to rip through and destroy the entire intranet in a matter of minutes. Homogeneous systems decrease security not increase it.
Tracing everyones actions on the internet is an absurd notion. By your logic pay phones should be illegal because you never know who may use it. CB radio should be illegal because terrorists may use it. Knives should be illegal because someone may commit murder with one.
Every other avenue of access leaves an audit trail.
So you're saying that if a terrorist broke into someone's house, tortured them until they gave out all their passwords, then the terrorists used the homeowner's internet account, then the terrorist can still be traced?
Yeahhhh...riiiight.
They don't even need to enter the country. The US has plenty of internet connections to the outside world. As for tracing the IP address, I seem to remember reading a news story about spammers using unallocated addresses to post their spam without being traced. Wide open 802.11 is hardly any more of a threat than anything else.
You and lots of other people on here seem to forget an obvious point.
You are chosing to ignore my obvious point.
Protecting intellectual property which is what they're doing is the EXACT OPPOSITE of communism and if you don't understand that you should go take some politics classes.
Maybe you should reread my post. Look closely at the part where I talked about the legal measures they can take. Clearly they are not trying to protect their "intellectual property." They are trying to rewrite the laws so they can control entire industries and methods of communication--not enforce their copyrights.
Remember , you have the option not to buy any of their product.
I may have the option not to buy their products and I don't. However they have rewritten the laws so I still have to pay money to them if I buy anything that is classified as a "digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium" whether I use their "intellectual property" or not.
Yes the story was talking about Japan (though the problem seemed to affect the Taiwan version too), but I was saying he wasn't dating himself because there is still communism in China.
About a minute after I clicked send, I thought of a joke about the Chinese trying to send a message to Taiwan (China claims Taiwan as their territory, Taiwan wants to be an independent free market country).
Most CDs from CD Baby are about $10-$15. They don't have artists from the major labels though.;-)
Disney does own "audio studios" (I assume you mean music labels). According to my info they're Buena Vista Music Group, Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records. I'm not sure what you meant by your limp-bizkit comment, but if you're saying that they are "clean cut" you are wrong. I hear they also own major stakes in the porn industry too...not very clean at all.
I don't think Britney's label (Zomba) is a member of the RIAA. But you are correct that big media companies still get money even if you boycott them. The current compulsary licensing system makes sure of that. You even pay "royalties" on "digital audio equipment" such as CD burners.
You don't have to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week working on art to be an artist. Many people do it in their free time to entertain themselves. Instead of picking their nose or watching tv/movies.
What's so great about Hollywood blockbusters? 99% of them suck too. All they do with the extra money is put it into special effects. Almost zero thought goes into the plot or anything else. In fact, if the writers put any thought into the script, the hollywood execs can't understand it and force the writer or director to take it out.
Look at the tv series Andromeda. At first it was a resonably decent series, then they fired the writer and Kevin Sorbo took over. Now it just looks like a poorly done 50's sci-fi serial with modern special effects. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plots.
The comrade comment is funny. Are you really trying to say a world without the entertainment cartel would be like communism? The cartel companies are the ones who are communists. They conquer every industry that is able to distribute their "content" and try to force out any competition out of the market. Then they funnel money from organizations who make "digital audio recording devices and media." So if you buy a CD burner or blank CD--even if you only use them to burn data you have a legal right to--such as computer backups, your own original creations, and music that you are licensed to copy (look up Licence Art Libre and the Open Audio licenses)--you still pay money to the cartel. They take away your rights and put money that belongs to others in their pockets. Sure sounds like communism to me.
They have legal measures they can take, but they don't want to. I remember when the Napster story came out, and they said they wouldn't prosecuted the "fans" who were "sharing" their works (the copyright infringers), but they would sue universities for giving internet access to their students and those creating communications software (innocent third parties). If they would have taken action against the copyright infringers, 90% of them would have stopped their illegal actions. If they would have left innocent third parties alone and not be unjustly trying to take control of the internet / computers / distribution methods, I wouldn't be so pissed off at them.
Slashdot Mirror
CSS is encryption, not copy protection. Encyryption doesn't stop anything from being copied. The entire point of CSS is for region encoding, forcing you to watch commercials, and making sure the DVD will only work on approved players.
So, if there is a free market, then I would be allowed to walk in your house and staple fliers to your wall? I would be allowed to fill a dumptruck with pamphlets and spill them all on your front lawn? I don't think so. A free market doesn't mean property rights go out the window.
It seems the big difference is that you can control where the telescope points. As far as I know, NASA doesn't let you do that. ;-)
Maybe this was their whole intent in the first place. After all it stirred up discussion about GNU. That's all RMS wants. He doesn't care if any GNU projects work. It's all about fanaticism. ;-)
There is a kernel level patch so that nothing can be executed in the stack, but a lot of people don't seem to want it. Actually, I think there are two competing patches. One of them is called Openwall.
There are also libraries to combat this sort of problem as well. Such as the one another poster listed...
That is true, but where did it say he was going to "continue" that show? It sounded more like he wanted to make his own original short movie(s).
No, it means the RIAA stole a CD from you. Report them to the police! ;-)
In 1984 OCEANIA, the music steals you!
There is: the etc/ directory is for global configuration data. /etc/skel/ is for the default user config. The user's home directory (aka ~ aka $HOME--often /home/username) contains his/her data and config files. lib/ is for shared libraries. shared/ is for the program's data. bin/ is for the programs executables. I believe the "shared" directory is a new concept (at least to Linux), everyone used to put their data into lib.
The users config files are usually named as a dot, the program's name then "rc" tacked on the end. If the program's name was bar, then it'd be ".barrc" in the home directory. Realise that anything starting with a period in Linux/Unix works like a hidden file in DOS/Windows--ls/dir won't display it unless you use the "-a" option. So looking at a listing of your home directory, you'll only see the data files instead of the clutter of all your config ones too.
If you wish to backup your general settings in Linux, storing /etc, /usr/etc, and /usr/local/etc should do it. The problem is not all programs written for Unix/Linux will conform to this standard. For example, Jed and lynx put their configuration files into the lib directory. Just like some Windows programs store their settings in ini files under the C:\Program Files directory...
Having three different places (/, /usr, and /usr/local) for everything may seem strange, but there is a reason behind it. Everything in /etc, /bin, /sbin, /lib are supposed to be the basic critical programs and system settings. /usr is for the programs used by most everyone in your organization and is often mounted read only from the network. /usr/local would be mounted on the computer's hard drive and programs added for the user(s) of that specific computer.
You may think the registry is a good idea, but it is just a poorly designed clone of the Unix way. Same goes for the "My Documents" folder vs the /home directory. Just proves the old saying "anyone who doesn't understand Unix is doomed to reimplement it poorly."
I think the right approch would be to convince the big game developers to use common standards such as OpenGL to write their games. That way it should be trivial to port the program to other OSs. If they just had to recompile to create binaries for Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, or BeOS, then I think we'd see many more ports than we do now.
That is one of the more lucrative markets for merchandise based upon the book. The book is about a doll (yeah, yeah really a puppet) that comes to life--unless what I've been lead to believe is wrong. I never read the book myself.
This is the situation that made me notice the issue. I visited one of American McGee's sites once, and the site said Disney was trying to sue them over trademark infringement. I can't find any references to it now, so I can only suppose Disney dropped the suit, but think of the implications. What if that was an open source or freeware project? They might just give in because they have no money for lawyers.
The only person who should have the right to trademark that name is the author of the popular book. At least for markets related to that book and things talked about in the book--assuming that Pinocchio is not a common name or some other business trademarked it before the book was published.
This sort of thing is an obvious example of abusing the trademark system. Trademarks are intended to keep shady people from selling shoddy products by claiming they represent a well established or well known business. It's not so that shady businesses can claim they own a name or word they didn't even come up with and sue everyone who uses it. I remember stories of people trademarking the name of an old popular singer and keeping the original singer from using his/her own name. I remember the stories of Sun trying to sue coffee vendors on the web because they used the name "Java". I remember hearing about McDonald's fast food suing the owner of a sandwitch shop she named after herself (as many people do).
The use of Pinocchio for things like modem cards, pizza and tomatoes are obviously tied to the book--at least not to my knowledge.
I'm not sure how or if the trademark system can really be fixed to cure this problem--especially considering issues like this are a bit subjective. I almose wonder if it would work better the trademark office assigned some sort of unique company id, and that would be used to distinguish different businesses. They can calll their product whatever they want, and you look at the trademark id to know if a product is made by the company you want to buy from.
Your post was great, but I'd like to point out that Disney has a trademark on Pinocchio. Just look it up at the US Trademark Office. (Use TESS to search.) Also look up some of the other books, I believe Disney has trademarks on their names as well--like Alice in Wonderland. I don't think it's right, but it appears the trademark office does...
Your comparison with the "12 year old with a vid card" and movies is not that much different than someone with a printing press and books. The reason everyone doesn't mass copy books all the time is because copyright laws are enforced in this area.
People use P2P to infringe copyrights because the copyright laws are not enforced against them--the media companies don't seem to want it. If people who did this paid fines and/or were sent to jail, the P2P copyright infringement would nearly stop. DMCA complaints don't cause discouragement for people who don't respect copyright law--it's just an inconvenience. DRM systems will not stop them either.
Just think if store owners had policies against prosecuting shoplifters because they do not want their "valued customers" in jail. Don't you think shoplifting would increase? What if these owners started suing backpack manufacturers, because they say the manufacturers contributed to shoplifting. Would you think their actions vaild? What if they tried to get laws passed saying all automobiles had to be equipped with an "anti-shoplifting" system? A system that detects store inventory tags, and only allows in products which are marked as paid for. You couldn't transport bread you baked yourself because you can't acquire any tags, but that's just one minor inconvenience to stop shoplifting!
All his IP addresses start with 127. 127.0.0.1 is the master server.
I had a girlfriend like this once. Razors kept breaking. She just gave up and grew a beard. She never lived down the Sasquatch nickname, but kissing her tickled. ;-)
You are wrong. Nobody died. I got a copy and I remember it clearly.
First the hobbits gather in a forest with talking trees. They are met by the Faerie Princess of the Two Towers and her nekkid girly attendants. The Faerie Princess takes off Frodo's clothes and they start going at it. Soon it just turns into a big, hour long orgy with singing trees.
Sam and one of the attendants almost drowned in...ummm...bodily fluid, but no one died.
My friends insist it's not the real movie--just some pr0n called "The Two Towers", but they don't know what they're talking about. ;-)
I don't think this story is a lie. It sounds to me the movie studios have just as much problem protecting their copyrighted material inside their own organization. Why else would we get these movies released from illegitimate sources before the movie even comes out?
...and they want a censorship and control system (aka DRM) placed on the general public? It sounds to me that won't solve their copyright infringement problems at all. More likely the "pirates" will steal the footage before any DRM control is placed on it. Moreover they will equally be able to steal or aquire all the software / equipment / DRM keys needed to make their content appear with valid watermarks. The only ones who won't be able to publish are the legitimate everyday person who has been making "intellectual property" since the beginning of history.
Maybe congress needs to pass a law to increase the "security" of movie studios. (and hopefully put them out of business in the process) ;-)
It is relevant. Statements such as "The Department of Homeland Security sees wireless networking technology as a terrorist threat." and 'If you're going to get broken into ... we're going to start regulating,' and "Clarke has stressed wireless access points as a national security threat." is where this came from.
That was my whole point. Banning WiFi (or making it so restricted it's useless) won't make the internet any more secure.
Yes, but the story was talking about hard core terrorists and saying that is why "homeland security" may want to impose restrictions on wireless networks. Or are you saying something should be banned just because some teenage vandal may abuse it? I guess the paint industry is in big trouble!
No, I'm saying it would be pointless to "secure" all access points to the internet. Most of them aren't even inside the US. Seriously, what do you want? Require a special license to access the internet? Use a DRM censorship system to make sure no one is sending unapproved data or using unapproved programs? Block off the United States' network from the rest of the world? I suppose that is the only way to make you think everyone is traceable and can't do anything illegal on the inter^H^H^Htranet.
What if the terrorists steal the DRM key or find an expliot in the DRM system? Everyone would then be just as vulnerable--if not more so. If the DRM system is mandated everywere, one small exploit or key in the wrong hands could allow a worm to rip through and destroy the entire intranet in a matter of minutes. Homogeneous systems decrease security not increase it.
Tracing everyones actions on the internet is an absurd notion. By your logic pay phones should be illegal because you never know who may use it. CB radio should be illegal because terrorists may use it. Knives should be illegal because someone may commit murder with one.
So you're saying that if a terrorist broke into someone's house, tortured them until they gave out all their passwords, then the terrorists used the homeowner's internet account, then the terrorist can still be traced?
Yeahhhh...riiiight.
They don't even need to enter the country. The US has plenty of internet connections to the outside world. As for tracing the IP address, I seem to remember reading a news story about spammers using unallocated addresses to post their spam without being traced. Wide open 802.11 is hardly any more of a threat than anything else.
You are chosing to ignore my obvious point.
Maybe you should reread my post. Look closely at the part where I talked about the legal measures they can take. Clearly they are not trying to protect their "intellectual property." They are trying to rewrite the laws so they can control entire industries and methods of communication--not enforce their copyrights.
I may have the option not to buy their products and I don't. However they have rewritten the laws so I still have to pay money to them if I buy anything that is classified as a "digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium" whether I use their "intellectual property" or not.
Yes the story was talking about Japan (though the problem seemed to affect the Taiwan version too), but I was saying he wasn't dating himself because there is still communism in China.
About a minute after I clicked send, I thought of a joke about the Chinese trying to send a message to Taiwan (China claims Taiwan as their territory, Taiwan wants to be an independent free market country).
Most CDs from CD Baby are about $10-$15. They don't have artists from the major labels though. ;-)
Disney does own "audio studios" (I assume you mean music labels). According to my info they're Buena Vista Music Group, Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records. I'm not sure what you meant by your limp-bizkit comment, but if you're saying that they are "clean cut" you are wrong. I hear they also own major stakes in the porn industry too...not very clean at all.
I don't think Britney's label (Zomba) is a member of the RIAA. But you are correct that big media companies still get money even if you boycott them. The current compulsary licensing system makes sure of that. You even pay "royalties" on "digital audio equipment" such as CD burners.
You don't have to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week working on art to be an artist. Many people do it in their free time to entertain themselves. Instead of picking their nose or watching tv/movies.
What's so great about Hollywood blockbusters? 99% of them suck too. All they do with the extra money is put it into special effects. Almost zero thought goes into the plot or anything else. In fact, if the writers put any thought into the script, the hollywood execs can't understand it and force the writer or director to take it out.
Look at the tv series Andromeda. At first it was a resonably decent series, then they fired the writer and Kevin Sorbo took over. Now it just looks like a poorly done 50's sci-fi serial with modern special effects. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plots.
The comrade comment is funny. Are you really trying to say a world without the entertainment cartel would be like communism? The cartel companies are the ones who are communists. They conquer every industry that is able to distribute their "content" and try to force out any competition out of the market. Then they funnel money from organizations who make "digital audio recording devices and media." So if you buy a CD burner or blank CD--even if you only use them to burn data you have a legal right to--such as computer backups, your own original creations, and music that you are licensed to copy (look up Licence Art Libre and the Open Audio licenses)--you still pay money to the cartel. They take away your rights and put money that belongs to others in their pockets. Sure sounds like communism to me.
They have legal measures they can take, but they don't want to. I remember when the Napster story came out, and they said they wouldn't prosecuted the "fans" who were "sharing" their works (the copyright infringers), but they would sue universities for giving internet access to their students and those creating communications software (innocent third parties). If they would have taken action against the copyright infringers, 90% of them would have stopped their illegal actions. If they would have left innocent third parties alone and not be unjustly trying to take control of the internet / computers / distribution methods, I wouldn't be so pissed off at them.
You're not dating yourself. China is still a very red Communist. ;-)