With napster, everything was there, I never downloaded anything that wasn't labeled correctly.
In your message alone you've labeled at least 3 different places you look to find something.
I didn't need to, it was on napster.
I didn't have to go to TPB, find torrents that were dead, then go to XXX and finally YYY and then ZZZ and still just find out that no one has a complete copy.
I didn't need to register.
I didn't need to maintain a ratio.
I don't have to worry about their being enough seeders or the other guy having enough bandwidth that I get it today.
I just GOT MUSIC.
My time is worth far too much to run all over the place trying to track something down.
I also don't have a DRM issue. Nothing I get from Amazon or iTunes has DRM, but thanks for showing your ignorance.
I also download songs from iTunes and Amazon in a matter of seconds.
Once you get out of high school and get a job, maybe a kid or two, your time will be worth more than the price of a song. Most people grow up and change to this mode eventually. Had napster continued to rain supreme it would have been the easiest way to get things, essentially a free iTunes/Amazon. But it was killed, and the replacements aren't nearly as useful as the original. And thats all it took.
If its a city park, the city polices it and makes random appearences looking for violators.
If its a private park and it is known for being a haven for such activities then, yes, in most jurisdictions you would bear the burden of trying to prevent it. This isn't a new concept. It may be as simple as calling the cops when you suspect something, it may be that you facilitate the cops watching over your property. There are many ways to reduce the burden on yourself.
Actively turning the other direction and ignoring it while you know its going on will get you in trouble though.
Would you be okay with women being raped regularly at your pool?
Of course, thats because I grew up and realize that it really is in my best interest to buy software and other content that I find valuable. Someone has to support those who put effort into making it. I also support the ones making my drugs.
Awe, aren't you cute and witty. You realize you just make the content producers point even more valid everytime you make such retarded statements, right?
Not sure what country you live in, but in America I've been renting movies first for probably 20 years. You have and have had a choice for as long as I can remember.
Now I use Netflix and Gamefly to try before I buy. You have a choice, a very valid and easy and most importantly LEGAL to use method to resolve this problem.
I agree with the problem of buying sub quality content. Most of my Gamefly games get put back in the mail the same day they arrive because they suck so much, but I don't have to pirate them to find this out, I seriously doubt you do either.
I have never seen anything legal on TPB, I'm sure its there somewhere, but its not something I've noticed.
Comprehension is hard when you are irrational, I know.
Do you really go to TPB to download a Linux torrent? I go to the site for the distro I want. Just yesterday I used a torrent to get Mythbuntu... from mythbuntu.org.
Now, if the argument was the opposite I'd agree with you. Lets say right now that 95% of TPB is illegal, 5% legal (which is probably overly generous). If it was 95% legal, 5% legal, I'd side with you.
But its not.
Linux may have 1k+ hits, but IF the site were up right now, I bet you'd find more hits for the 'This Is It' movie download alone than you'd find for Linux. You'd CERTAINLY find more people torrenting the movie than than Linux. If you think otherwise you have some pretty thick blinders on.
There are PLENTY of sites that cater to legitimate torrents, TPB isn't one of them, stop trying to justify it that way, you just encourage the content producers and lawyers to make blanket statements like 'torrenting is for warez'.
Comments like these hurt us more than help us.
If you expect to be able to keep these sort of sites going for legitimate uses, you really need to NOT deny what is blatantly obvious to everyone.
The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathological lairs and really believe this nonsense.
No, they exist to share files. The consequences of providing this service is many people share copyrighted material; I agree that the people running the pirate bay have demonstrated they have no problem with this. You are wrong in saying it exists to facilitate copyright infringement because if copyright was not an issue then the site would still exist to share non copyrighted material.
Plenty of sites exist to share files legally, torrents and otherwise. Without copyright issues, TPB wouldn't exist. There would be no anti-copyright organization, they wouldn't have started the site. There would surely be other sites to facilitate sharing as there are now. To deny the reason TPB was created is silly.
The only thing copyright infringement has in common with murder is that both of them are considered unlawful. It may be an effective emotive device to draw a comparison between copyright infringement and murder but I think the argument could be summed up 'people should respect the law'.
There is a lot of precedent to contest this. We largely got where we are today by people ignoring laws they did not agree with, for example the Boston Tea Party is widely regarded as a justified case of direct action, Wikipedia has many more examples [wikipedia.org].
Point taken. I certainly did use an extreme comparison. Murder and copyright violation are certainly not in the same class of crime. But there are good ways and bad ways to protest. I'm not against the idea of what TPB stands for to some people. There are times when drastic measures and flat out disobedience are required. Copyright infringement just isn't one of them to me. Theres a difference between the Boston tea party and TPB to me. The tea party wasn't about taxes on tea, it was about taxing with no say in what goes on. No control in their lives, and having everything dictated by people so disconnected from them that they had no idea what it was doing to them, or they did have an idea and didn't care, probably more so than ignorance.
To me, a more powerful, and completely legal protest would be for people to simply stop using materials with ridiculous copyright restrictions and boycott those that use and support it. Buy and use things that are more sane, avoid content producers that have went off the deep end.
I worry when we are ruled by law rather than reason. A famous philosopher once said that philosophy allowed him to do by choice what others did by the rule of law, to say that law is more important than reason is to take the power of people to reason for themselves away from them.
Well, I don't even believe in my original statement on this. We indeed DO want ways to skirt around the law in certain cases where it makes sense, but thats not what TPB does. TPB says, heres the finger, its on it and rotate, we don't care about the spirit of the law, we'll do whatever we want and you can't stop us. The end result will be that the lawyers, who are far better financed and educated in the ways of skirting the law come up with a way to stop you from skirting around it. And thats what we're seeing in this case. Its REALLY difficult to beat someone on their own ground, we need to change the playing field, level it so we're on equal footing rather than continuing to fight on their ground. Unless you're suggesting the entire world revolt against its governments, then just ignoring the law won't work and shouldn't, it has to be changed. If we're going to ignore this one, why not ignore the laws against harming others, TPB certainly DOES harm others. I am a commercial software developer, software written by my company has been on TPB on more than one occasion, I certainly have lost income because of it. You are suggesting that its okay to hurt me, so you get your way. This I do not agree with. Of course, I have never bothered fighting it with TPB or any other organization like it (I've seen my software on IRC
Learned what from napster? I haven't used another P2P client since it went away. All the replacements are asstastic and are nothing compared to what napster was in its day. They most certainly one that particular battle on the large scale. Taking napster down splintered the system enough that it became FAR FAR less useful.
You will never stop it, and thats not something they are even trying to do, its too expensive. They can, however, stop the majority of it by making it too much of a pain to justify the effort and providing alternatives that are usable/cheap enough to make it not worth pirating.
I had a rather large collection of music in that time period, my roommate had a massive collection, filled a $100k Sun fibre channel array with mp3s, well over a hundred gigs, in the late 90s. The array failed to boot one day, and was moved to a new site eventually, I have no idea what happened to those songs. I do know that since then, with the advent of iTunes and dollar songs, that now I just buy music. Back then my time was worth less than the cost of buying a CD for one song. Now, my time is worth far more than the cost of buying the song. I don't pirate anything anymore.
Well, I did make one exception. The day Metallica got all uppity about mp3's and iTunes, I proceeded directly to TPB and downloaded all of their music. I have since learned the error of my ways, I no longer pirate Metallica music either. Now its simply banned from my home. They can kiss my rosey red ass, fucking sell outs:)
Technically, they aren't committing copyright infringement.
Lets face reality though, Pirate Bay exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You really can't deny that, it does not make any attempt what so ever to prevent it. It was created by an anti-copyright organization.
You can't hold me responsible for a murder on my property that I had no idea was going on, didn't see, didn't intentionally facilitate and would have attempted to stop had I known about it.. But when on any given day (in fact several thousand times EVERYDAY), I can look out my window and watch it happening, while I sit and drink my coffee, its a slightly different story. When the exclusive reason people come to my property is because I'll provide them with information on how to find victims, and then look the other way while they strangle those victims, I am most certainly responsible for the murders as much as the guy doing it. They can't even say 'I was just following orders', unless you think that was a valid excuse for Hitler as well, considering he was giving the orders, I don't think anyone would go that far would they?
I wouldn't expect the courts to allow someone watching these murders to take place and not do anything about it, I hope you don't either.
Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
I have used torrents for legal downloads. Torrents are not the problem. P2P is not the problem. Things that exist almost exclusively to facilitate copyright infringement ARE a problem.
I have never seen anything legal on TPB, I'm sure its there somewhere, but its not something I've noticed. I've certainly never used it for anything legal. I've used it to replace several lost/scratched disks and other content I actually own. I've used to get things I don't own, I won't deny that. But never once did I think it was 'legal'.
I worry for the rule of the law when people can so easily skirt around it in this way.
I would prefer that the copyright law was fixed. I believe it will be. According to Wikipedia, TPB ranks 107th most popular site in the world. I'm obviously not alone. I believe something will bring these laws to the public forefront enough that the content producers will be tarred, feathered, and strung from a tree, and finally we'll change the copyright law. Until then, they ARE accessories to illegal activities by any sane standard on the planet.
Its silly to imply there is no evidence. if you've ever been to the site.
Again, I'm not against the site, its creators, or its purpose. I'm also not so nieve as to try to imply its not one of the easiest ways on the planet to pirate software. If anything, its made it something the general public can do with trivial time investment. Not like the good old days of EFNet when it took some sort of know how to get at the warez. Its far too easy now, and as such software and content is becoming more DRM infested. This will come to a head. Not in time to save the TPB guys, they will at best become martyrs. Maybe this is the only way the law will get changed, but its silly to think they'll get away with it. I wish them the best of luck, but I also know they certainly are guilty of facilitating illegal activities.
When you make comments like yours, and people mod them insightful, it just makes the anti-copyright movement seem all the more illegitimate. Take legalized racism in America for example. Riots and violence didn't make it go away, it just got people killed and hurt those being wronged more than those doing the wrong. Peaceful and law abiding protest on a massive scale got it to go away (more or less, we're still working on it). Breaking the law won't get it changed, voting can however. Do your job as a citizen and you can fix the problem, IF its actually important enough to you to invest the time to do so.
US military bases are for all intents and purposes US soil. They generally don't get goverened by the same laws as the country they are in while they are on base. Off base is another story, but on base is US soil with all the rights, privileges and restrictions of it.
Why should they get it? Its not a right, and they did sign up for the job, no argument there. However, considering this people put their lives on the line to protect my skinny little cowardly ass, I think anything we can easily do to make them feel more at home should be done. They risk their lives for me, they can have a few comforts from home, especially when it takes almost no effort to allow it.
Why do you think our warships and bases have Internet access in the first place? Many of them have sat feeds that bring in US television.
The information for standard base users is already available and if it wasn't, it wouldn't be hard to figure out. Trying to hide the fact that your IP is for a specific location or organization is rather silly.
In most cases a traceroute to the originating IP will make it pretty clear that its a US military base.
You might not do it for some super secret stuff, but those guys probably aren't watching Hulu over the network either. They most likely aren't even able to.
Its not like the government can't register the base IPs with Hulu to overcome the problem. I doubt too many advertisers would fight it, being that it would seem pretty damn 'un-American' to cut off your military personal overseas.
Of course on that same note, Hulu could figure it out pretty easy themselves. There aren't THAT many bases to deal with.
Or... they could just use the same geolocation they use to block IPs outside the US to serve location aware advertising. Don't serve the US add to China. Amazon would probably be more than happy to have its ads served in China though.
They are already using the tech, wouldn't take much effort to support it really.
The fact that they care far less about backwards compatibility ABI since most things for Linux can be recompiled might have a slight effect on why Linux bugs get 'fixed' faster. You have a different definition of 'fix' than most of the world.
More appropriate would be to give your friend a F as he seems to have entirely missed the point. If he had a clue, he would have added a check to itself to always give itself an A, maybe throw in a joke about it along the way.
Really... they know what they are doing? Then why is it called:
Research
If they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.
ALL software has bugs. Adding more software to fix bugs... introduces more bugs.
This doesn't just apply to software, it applies to just about everything, right down to the atoms that make of the universe from our perspective. As far as we can figure, the universe itself will break down to a state that will no longer support life as we know it. Adding more layers of protection falls under the laws of diminishing returns, software, hardware, bridges, cars, or molecules.
This certainly isn't a new idea, and it'll meet the same fate as existing ideas, a quick death as someone figures out how to use it to cause more damage than good.
How does it know the difference between intentional and accidental? It doesn't. This is why compilers can't fix programmer bugs, they can at best warn or error on them. The compiler really is the most likely part of the process to find and fix any bugs that can be automagically found in a closed system.
'find a potential patch' ?
I have that, its the 'Check for updates' button.
Yes I realize that its trying to detect runtime errors and correct those, but anyone with half a clue about CS knows multiple reasons why this simply doesn't work. The first and foremost reason being that it will take something intentional, classify it as a bug and 'fix' it. In effect breaking it. The only way to fix this is to keep a big exception list that constantly needs updated... which will also have bugs. Rinse, repeat for the rest of eternity.
Yes and the spy sats can see through your roof and read what you are typing on your comp00ter right now!
Seriously, get a grip, they aren't watching you. REALLY, they aren't. If Echelon were reading those, don't you think it would be exactly the thing to obsfucate if you've got something to hide? And thats done with SSL, not PGP.
If you're going to suggest something for encryption, PGP is entirely not it on any number of levels. There are several reasons why only geeks use it, first being its obnoxious to keep your key data up to date, even with the key servers. This is a prime example of why the 'OMG DECENTRALIZEDQ%!@%!@%' crap people go for is retarded. You decentralize it, then add back centralized servers so you can make it usable again, but not usable enough that everyone is on the same page.
S/MIME is far more useful in the general sense of email since there are 3rd party 'trusted' stores for validating certificates AND revoke them.
PGP users are too into the idea of a decentralized web of trust which is fine for geeks who have 4 friends and thats the end of it, for those of us who communicate with others outside of our basement it falls apart. It was a great first implementation of encryption for the masses, but we're past that now, will you geeks please get over it. Its not going to take over the world, the general public isn't going to bother, hell I'm a geek who writes encryption software and I don't deal with PGP.
You can also require encrypted connections to your mail server and make encrypted connections to other mail servers, lowering the problem with clear data over the public networks.
You'd cut yourself off from many people that way as not a lot of the Internet supports SSL or TLS SMTP (My servers certainly do, those not required for inbound mail from outside my domains).
You'll cut down on a lot of spam that way, at least for now.
Most those things have separate laws to cover them. Well some of them due, I do not think there are any such protections for safe deposit boxes other than the providers of said boxes have a reputation to maintain if they want people to use them. There aren't to my knowledge any such protections for storage units, although it may be covered as if it were your home by a different law.
Phones and mail have laws specific too them to protect them, nothing to do with the 4th admendment other than spirit and intention.
We're just going to have to get off our lazy asses and demand the same coverage for internet related communication.
The main difference with phones is historically, there has not been a recording of the call stored outside the persons home. The phone company doesn't record every conversation for you to listen too later. If they did, you'd be in a different arena. Its much easier for law enforcement to get records of your calls than it is to wire tap your calls, the records are already stored so you can be billed, and you and I demanded the phone company do so, as we expect detailed billing.
With email, ISPs DO record it for later, as part of the service, thats the way it works. Your email ISN'T private and its rather retarded that you think something stored on someone elses hard drive is private to you, regardless of the law.
The same is true with phone calls as well. In most states, only one person has to consent to recording the call and doesn't have to notify the other party that its being recorded or used by someone else.
Just because YOU don't consent to a phone conversation being recorded, doesn't mean the guy you are talking to feels the same way and if he doesn't, you have no legal recourse to prevent the information from being transferred to anyone else.
The same applies to mail, bank transfers, you name it. The law generally doesn't require ALL parties to consent, just one. Which is the way it should be. You can't call me up, tell me you murdered someone and then say that the phone call can't be used in court because you didn't consent to it. It wasn't a private conversation with yourself, it was a private conversation with me, and I don't want it to be private. Game over.
Reread the summary all you want, this is FAR more common than you realize.
You can take your suppression and go to hell. That is a serious PROBLEM with these laws, the only time you suppress something is when you've done something wrong.
The point of privacy laws isn't so you can get away with doing something illegal, its so that your business STAYS your business and you don't have to worry about anyone knowing your business.
When you get to the point of 'suppressing' something, the point of the laws has already been passed, others already know about it, your privacy has been lost. All you are doing at that point is hiding what you've done wrong as a pseudo punishment to the law enforcement and judicial agents that didn't follow proper procedure.
Suppression is SUPPOSED to be used as a deterrent to prevent the police from not going about collecting evidence the right way. The idea is that if they don't follow the rules and respect your privacy, they won't be able to use the evidence. So they follow the rules so they can use the evidence otherwise the criminal gets it suppressed and possibly goes free. There are of course minor exceptions to this, when the people on trial didn't do anything wrong but the information could bias a jury or judge, but these are even rare corner cases than a windows machine thats been running for a year without rebooting.
Suppression only hurts the police and helps criminals, it doesn't directly help the actual victims that the laws are there to protect, the victims being innocent people who aren't covering anything wrong up, but would rather prefer that you didn't know they liked spreading peanut butter over themselves and having a moose lick it off. Suppression is used as a punishment/deterrent against bad law enforcement agents as its about the only reasonable way to slow them down in a appropriate manner, when putting them on trial would be overkill.
This is why I'll never end up on a jury, as soon as I find out someone is suppressing evidence, I'm biased. Its is possible my bias is misplaced, but the odds are well in my favor.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people don't deserve the right to think on their own.
Copyright does not restrict what you can create. It restricts what you can copy that someone else created.
You can create all day long. You can even copy to some extent for personal uses. You can't copy it and distribute it as if it were your own creation.
Get some perspective.
Thanks for proving my point.
With napster, everything was there, I never downloaded anything that wasn't labeled correctly.
In your message alone you've labeled at least 3 different places you look to find something.
I didn't need to, it was on napster.
I didn't have to go to TPB, find torrents that were dead, then go to XXX and finally YYY and then ZZZ and still just find out that no one has a complete copy.
I didn't need to register.
I didn't need to maintain a ratio.
I don't have to worry about their being enough seeders or the other guy having enough bandwidth that I get it today.
I just GOT MUSIC.
My time is worth far too much to run all over the place trying to track something down.
I also don't have a DRM issue. Nothing I get from Amazon or iTunes has DRM, but thanks for showing your ignorance.
I also download songs from iTunes and Amazon in a matter of seconds.
Once you get out of high school and get a job, maybe a kid or two, your time will be worth more than the price of a song. Most people grow up and change to this mode eventually. Had napster continued to rain supreme it would have been the easiest way to get things, essentially a free iTunes/Amazon. But it was killed, and the replacements aren't nearly as useful as the original. And thats all it took.
If its a city park, the city polices it and makes random appearences looking for violators.
If its a private park and it is known for being a haven for such activities then, yes, in most jurisdictions you would bear the burden of trying to prevent it. This isn't a new concept. It may be as simple as calling the cops when you suspect something, it may be that you facilitate the cops watching over your property. There are many ways to reduce the burden on yourself.
Actively turning the other direction and ignoring it while you know its going on will get you in trouble though.
Would you be okay with women being raped regularly at your pool?
I disagree.
I openly admit to using drugs.
I haven't pirated anything in years.
Of course, thats because I grew up and realize that it really is in my best interest to buy software and other content that I find valuable. Someone has to support those who put effort into making it. I also support the ones making my drugs.
Your comparison is flawed on many many levels.
Awe, aren't you cute and witty. You realize you just make the content producers point even more valid everytime you make such retarded statements, right?
Not sure what country you live in, but in America I've been renting movies first for probably 20 years. You have and have had a choice for as long as I can remember.
Now I use Netflix and Gamefly to try before I buy. You have a choice, a very valid and easy and most importantly LEGAL to use method to resolve this problem.
I agree with the problem of buying sub quality content. Most of my Gamefly games get put back in the mail the same day they arrive because they suck so much, but I don't have to pirate them to find this out, I seriously doubt you do either.
Comprehension is hard when you are irrational, I know.
Do you really go to TPB to download a Linux torrent? I go to the site for the distro I want. Just yesterday I used a torrent to get Mythbuntu ... from mythbuntu.org.
Now, if the argument was the opposite I'd agree with you. Lets say right now that 95% of TPB is illegal, 5% legal (which is probably overly generous). If it was 95% legal, 5% legal, I'd side with you.
But its not.
Linux may have 1k+ hits, but IF the site were up right now, I bet you'd find more hits for the 'This Is It' movie download alone than you'd find for Linux. You'd CERTAINLY find more people torrenting the movie than than Linux. If you think otherwise you have some pretty thick blinders on.
There are PLENTY of sites that cater to legitimate torrents, TPB isn't one of them, stop trying to justify it that way, you just encourage the content producers and lawyers to make blanket statements like 'torrenting is for warez'.
Comments like these hurt us more than help us.
If you expect to be able to keep these sort of sites going for legitimate uses, you really need to NOT deny what is blatantly obvious to everyone.
The only time I can see people making statements like yours is when they are simply pathological lairs and really believe this nonsense.
If you want to help, please stop commenting.
Plenty of sites exist to share files legally, torrents and otherwise. Without copyright issues, TPB wouldn't exist. There would be no anti-copyright organization, they wouldn't have started the site. There would surely be other sites to facilitate sharing as there are now. To deny the reason TPB was created is silly.
Point taken. I certainly did use an extreme comparison. Murder and copyright violation are certainly not in the same class of crime. But there are good ways and bad ways to protest. I'm not against the idea of what TPB stands for to some people. There are times when drastic measures and flat out disobedience are required. Copyright infringement just isn't one of them to me. Theres a difference between the Boston tea party and TPB to me. The tea party wasn't about taxes on tea, it was about taxing with no say in what goes on. No control in their lives, and having everything dictated by people so disconnected from them that they had no idea what it was doing to them, or they did have an idea and didn't care, probably more so than ignorance.
To me, a more powerful, and completely legal protest would be for people to simply stop using materials with ridiculous copyright restrictions and boycott those that use and support it. Buy and use things that are more sane, avoid content producers that have went off the deep end.
Well, I don't even believe in my original statement on this. We indeed DO want ways to skirt around the law in certain cases where it makes sense, but thats not what TPB does. TPB says, heres the finger, its on it and rotate, we don't care about the spirit of the law, we'll do whatever we want and you can't stop us. The end result will be that the lawyers, who are far better financed and educated in the ways of skirting the law come up with a way to stop you from skirting around it. And thats what we're seeing in this case. Its REALLY difficult to beat someone on their own ground, we need to change the playing field, level it so we're on equal footing rather than continuing to fight on their ground. Unless you're suggesting the entire world revolt against its governments, then just ignoring the law won't work and shouldn't, it has to be changed. If we're going to ignore this one, why not ignore the laws against harming others, TPB certainly DOES harm others. I am a commercial software developer, software written by my company has been on TPB on more than one occasion, I certainly have lost income because of it. You are suggesting that its okay to hurt me, so you get your way. This I do not agree with. Of course, I have never bothered fighting it with TPB or any other organization like it (I've seen my software on IRC
Learned what from napster? I haven't used another P2P client since it went away. All the replacements are asstastic and are nothing compared to what napster was in its day. They most certainly one that particular battle on the large scale. Taking napster down splintered the system enough that it became FAR FAR less useful.
You will never stop it, and thats not something they are even trying to do, its too expensive. They can, however, stop the majority of it by making it too much of a pain to justify the effort and providing alternatives that are usable/cheap enough to make it not worth pirating.
I had a rather large collection of music in that time period, my roommate had a massive collection, filled a $100k Sun fibre channel array with mp3s, well over a hundred gigs, in the late 90s. The array failed to boot one day, and was moved to a new site eventually, I have no idea what happened to those songs. I do know that since then, with the advent of iTunes and dollar songs, that now I just buy music. Back then my time was worth less than the cost of buying a CD for one song. Now, my time is worth far more than the cost of buying the song. I don't pirate anything anymore.
Well, I did make one exception. The day Metallica got all uppity about mp3's and iTunes, I proceeded directly to TPB and downloaded all of their music. I have since learned the error of my ways, I no longer pirate Metallica music either. Now its simply banned from my home. They can kiss my rosey red ass, fucking sell outs :)
Technically, they aren't committing copyright infringement.
Lets face reality though, Pirate Bay exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You really can't deny that, it does not make any attempt what so ever to prevent it. It was created by an anti-copyright organization.
You can't hold me responsible for a murder on my property that I had no idea was going on, didn't see, didn't intentionally facilitate and would have attempted to stop had I known about it.. But when on any given day (in fact several thousand times EVERYDAY), I can look out my window and watch it happening, while I sit and drink my coffee, its a slightly different story. When the exclusive reason people come to my property is because I'll provide them with information on how to find victims, and then look the other way while they strangle those victims, I am most certainly responsible for the murders as much as the guy doing it. They can't even say 'I was just following orders', unless you think that was a valid excuse for Hitler as well, considering he was giving the orders, I don't think anyone would go that far would they?
I wouldn't expect the courts to allow someone watching these murders to take place and not do anything about it, I hope you don't either.
Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
I have used torrents for legal downloads. Torrents are not the problem. P2P is not the problem. Things that exist almost exclusively to facilitate copyright infringement ARE a problem.
I have never seen anything legal on TPB, I'm sure its there somewhere, but its not something I've noticed. I've certainly never used it for anything legal. I've used it to replace several lost/scratched disks and other content I actually own. I've used to get things I don't own, I won't deny that. But never once did I think it was 'legal'.
I worry for the rule of the law when people can so easily skirt around it in this way.
I would prefer that the copyright law was fixed. I believe it will be. According to Wikipedia, TPB ranks 107th most popular site in the world. I'm obviously not alone. I believe something will bring these laws to the public forefront enough that the content producers will be tarred, feathered, and strung from a tree, and finally we'll change the copyright law. Until then, they ARE accessories to illegal activities by any sane standard on the planet.
Its silly to imply there is no evidence. if you've ever been to the site.
Again, I'm not against the site, its creators, or its purpose. I'm also not so nieve as to try to imply its not one of the easiest ways on the planet to pirate software. If anything, its made it something the general public can do with trivial time investment. Not like the good old days of EFNet when it took some sort of know how to get at the warez. Its far too easy now, and as such software and content is becoming more DRM infested. This will come to a head. Not in time to save the TPB guys, they will at best become martyrs. Maybe this is the only way the law will get changed, but its silly to think they'll get away with it. I wish them the best of luck, but I also know they certainly are guilty of facilitating illegal activities.
When you make comments like yours, and people mod them insightful, it just makes the anti-copyright movement seem all the more illegitimate. Take legalized racism in America for example. Riots and violence didn't make it go away, it just got people killed and hurt those being wronged more than those doing the wrong. Peaceful and law abiding protest on a massive scale got it to go away (more or less, we're still working on it). Breaking the law won't get it changed, voting can however. Do your job as a citizen and you can fix the problem, IF its actually important enough to you to invest the time to do so.
US military bases are for all intents and purposes US soil. They generally don't get goverened by the same laws as the country they are in while they are on base. Off base is another story, but on base is US soil with all the rights, privileges and restrictions of it.
Why should they get it? Its not a right, and they did sign up for the job, no argument there. However, considering this people put their lives on the line to protect my skinny little cowardly ass, I think anything we can easily do to make them feel more at home should be done. They risk their lives for me, they can have a few comforts from home, especially when it takes almost no effort to allow it.
Why do you think our warships and bases have Internet access in the first place? Many of them have sat feeds that bring in US television.
The information for standard base users is already available and if it wasn't, it wouldn't be hard to figure out. Trying to hide the fact that your IP is for a specific location or organization is rather silly.
In most cases a traceroute to the originating IP will make it pretty clear that its a US military base.
You might not do it for some super secret stuff, but those guys probably aren't watching Hulu over the network either. They most likely aren't even able to.
Its not like the government can't register the base IPs with Hulu to overcome the problem. I doubt too many advertisers would fight it, being that it would seem pretty damn 'un-American' to cut off your military personal overseas.
Of course on that same note, Hulu could figure it out pretty easy themselves. There aren't THAT many bases to deal with.
Or ... they could just use the same geolocation they use to block IPs outside the US to serve location aware advertising. Don't serve the US add to China. Amazon would probably be more than happy to have its ads served in China though.
They are already using the tech, wouldn't take much effort to support it really.
The fact that they care far less about backwards compatibility ABI since most things for Linux can be recompiled might have a slight effect on why Linux bugs get 'fixed' faster. You have a different definition of 'fix' than most of the world.
More appropriate would be to give your friend a F as he seems to have entirely missed the point. If he had a clue, he would have added a check to itself to always give itself an A, maybe throw in a joke about it along the way.
He didn't deserve a D, that much is clear.
Really ... they know what they are doing? Then why is it called:
Research
If they knew what they were doing it wouldn't really be research would it.
ALL software has bugs. Adding more software to fix bugs ... introduces more bugs.
This doesn't just apply to software, it applies to just about everything, right down to the atoms that make of the universe from our perspective. As far as we can figure, the universe itself will break down to a state that will no longer support life as we know it. Adding more layers of protection falls under the laws of diminishing returns, software, hardware, bridges, cars, or molecules.
And how would it do that? You think MS software has every feature for every situation that will ever exist? Its just the bugs that are the problem?
Seriously, why the hell is this news on slashdot?
This certainly isn't a new idea, and it'll meet the same fate as existing ideas, a quick death as someone figures out how to use it to cause more damage than good.
How does it know the difference between intentional and accidental? It doesn't. This is why compilers can't fix programmer bugs, they can at best warn or error on them. The compiler really is the most likely part of the process to find and fix any bugs that can be automagically found in a closed system.
'find a potential patch' ?
I have that, its the 'Check for updates' button.
Yes I realize that its trying to detect runtime errors and correct those, but anyone with half a clue about CS knows multiple reasons why this simply doesn't work. The first and foremost reason being that it will take something intentional, classify it as a bug and 'fix' it. In effect breaking it. The only way to fix this is to keep a big exception list that constantly needs updated ... which will also have bugs. Rinse, repeat for the rest of eternity.
Yes and the spy sats can see through your roof and read what you are typing on your comp00ter right now!
Seriously, get a grip, they aren't watching you. REALLY, they aren't. If Echelon were reading those, don't you think it would be exactly the thing to obsfucate if you've got something to hide? And thats done with SSL, not PGP.
If you're going to suggest something for encryption, PGP is entirely not it on any number of levels. There are several reasons why only geeks use it, first being its obnoxious to keep your key data up to date, even with the key servers. This is a prime example of why the 'OMG DECENTRALIZEDQ%!@%!@%' crap people go for is retarded. You decentralize it, then add back centralized servers so you can make it usable again, but not usable enough that everyone is on the same page.
S/MIME is far more useful in the general sense of email since there are 3rd party 'trusted' stores for validating certificates AND revoke them.
PGP users are too into the idea of a decentralized web of trust which is fine for geeks who have 4 friends and thats the end of it, for those of us who communicate with others outside of our basement it falls apart. It was a great first implementation of encryption for the masses, but we're past that now, will you geeks please get over it. Its not going to take over the world, the general public isn't going to bother, hell I'm a geek who writes encryption software and I don't deal with PGP.
You can also require encrypted connections to your mail server and make encrypted connections to other mail servers, lowering the problem with clear data over the public networks.
You'd cut yourself off from many people that way as not a lot of the Internet supports SSL or TLS SMTP (My servers certainly do, those not required for inbound mail from outside my domains).
You'll cut down on a lot of spam that way, at least for now.
You would be wrong.
Most those things have separate laws to cover them. Well some of them due, I do not think there are any such protections for safe deposit boxes other than the providers of said boxes have a reputation to maintain if they want people to use them. There aren't to my knowledge any such protections for storage units, although it may be covered as if it were your home by a different law.
Phones and mail have laws specific too them to protect them, nothing to do with the 4th admendment other than spirit and intention.
We're just going to have to get off our lazy asses and demand the same coverage for internet related communication.
The main difference with phones is historically, there has not been a recording of the call stored outside the persons home. The phone company doesn't record every conversation for you to listen too later. If they did, you'd be in a different arena. Its much easier for law enforcement to get records of your calls than it is to wire tap your calls, the records are already stored so you can be billed, and you and I demanded the phone company do so, as we expect detailed billing.
With email, ISPs DO record it for later, as part of the service, thats the way it works. Your email ISN'T private and its rather retarded that you think something stored on someone elses hard drive is private to you, regardless of the law.
The same is true with phone calls as well. In most states, only one person has to consent to recording the call and doesn't have to notify the other party that its being recorded or used by someone else.
Just because YOU don't consent to a phone conversation being recorded, doesn't mean the guy you are talking to feels the same way and if he doesn't, you have no legal recourse to prevent the information from being transferred to anyone else.
The same applies to mail, bank transfers, you name it. The law generally doesn't require ALL parties to consent, just one. Which is the way it should be. You can't call me up, tell me you murdered someone and then say that the phone call can't be used in court because you didn't consent to it. It wasn't a private conversation with yourself, it was a private conversation with me, and I don't want it to be private. Game over.
Reread the summary all you want, this is FAR more common than you realize.
You can take your suppression and go to hell. That is a serious PROBLEM with these laws, the only time you suppress something is when you've done something wrong.
The point of privacy laws isn't so you can get away with doing something illegal, its so that your business STAYS your business and you don't have to worry about anyone knowing your business.
When you get to the point of 'suppressing' something, the point of the laws has already been passed, others already know about it, your privacy has been lost. All you are doing at that point is hiding what you've done wrong as a pseudo punishment to the law enforcement and judicial agents that didn't follow proper procedure.
Suppression is SUPPOSED to be used as a deterrent to prevent the police from not going about collecting evidence the right way. The idea is that if they don't follow the rules and respect your privacy, they won't be able to use the evidence. So they follow the rules so they can use the evidence otherwise the criminal gets it suppressed and possibly goes free. There are of course minor exceptions to this, when the people on trial didn't do anything wrong but the information could bias a jury or judge, but these are even rare corner cases than a windows machine thats been running for a year without rebooting.
Suppression only hurts the police and helps criminals, it doesn't directly help the actual victims that the laws are there to protect, the victims being innocent people who aren't covering anything wrong up, but would rather prefer that you didn't know they liked spreading peanut butter over themselves and having a moose lick it off. Suppression is used as a punishment/deterrent against bad law enforcement agents as its about the only reasonable way to slow them down in a appropriate manner, when putting them on trial would be overkill.
This is why I'll never end up on a jury, as soon as I find out someone is suppressing evidence, I'm biased. Its is possible my bias is misplaced, but the odds are well in my favor.