The child is an instrument of your will. Note - they are not acting as your agent, as a child cannot be an agent. Instead, they are your instrument, much like a pen signing your name or a cat clicking a button for you is an instrument. You are responsible for acts committed through instruments of your will.
That makes sense. If you instruct them to click "I agree" or somehow set it up so they can only click "I agree" clearly they're acting for you. But what happens if you give them a choice, you ask them to choose? Is the kid exercising their own will when you tell them "I disagree" means a long car ride back to best buy and they'll probably miss their favorite show?
Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.
The issue isn't the argument, the issue is their conflict of interest.
You shouldn't use your job as VP to award no-bid-contracts to companies you used to run. You shouldn't use your job at DoJ to aid a plaintiff you used to represent.
It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light.
And if that burglar steals again, he can be tried again for that new crime.
Piratebay isn't going to stop offering torrents. It's a matter of when one offense ends and another begins. Are they being charged for the system of offering torrents or are they being charged for specific torrents?
as for apps insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Do you really want to have to deal with a allow or cancel of each little thing that a installer does?
No it doesn't need to be a separate prompt for each action... but it should prompt with a complete list of system changes and ask for permission on the bulk.
The soldier would only want the radar portion and only one per squad. If it can detect the trajectory of a bullet, it can identify precisely the point of origin. It makes it a lot more dangerous to be a sniper.
That was my point, it's a reasonable idea when you can expect no false positives. I used the terror watchlist as a counter example of how it can be bad when you do have significant false positives.
I think more accurately, do license plates and the ability for police to look them up assume all drivers are breaking the law?
It's not just the ability to, it's the automated constant use of it. More correct analogies: -The TSA checking every passenger against a terror watchlist. -Roadside cameras reading every license plate to find stolen cars and people with warrants on them.
It's all a matter of how accurate of signature it is.
See, I think you are part of the problem in this. On one hand, you say the RIAA doesn't deserve money from you. On the other, you illegally download their creations
Reread GP, he never says he downloads, pirates, copies or anything:
I always check RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com] before purchasing an album. If it's an RIAA artist, then they don't get any money.
The flaw in your thinking is that you read his post in the context that RIAA controls everything and that music is essential. There are plenty of places to get music legally without funding RIAA. I haven't bought a RIAA album in over 6 years. I haven't downloaded/copied any either.
Your logic is scary. "You don't support their business you must be a criminal" Profits are not an entitlement just for showing up, they have to be earned.
I've sent a drive in for data recovery before and was asked which operating system to recover: solaris or Windows NT....
A reinstall is not a drive wipe in regards to forensics. While IT may call it a wipe and refresh the data is easily recovered. It's this confusion between delete, reinstall, format, and wipe that starts unfounded rumors. Not to mention the differences between different file systems.
A wipe is a writing data to EVERY sector. A format does not wipe, a deletion does not wipe and wiping is not common practice. With the size of drives today, you'd practically have to leave it going overnight. Most drives go their whole life without ever once being wiped.
Some antivirus will hook write events (I know Avast can for example, I'm assuming Kaspersky can too), they do this to ask permission (allow? deny?), however if you set up the logging right, you could get a list of every file modified without it doing dialog. However if you're working against a rootkit, it may do a hook itself and skip the antivirus alltogether. However Kaspersky is pretty robust, so it could probably flag other suspicious events, which could be nice if you're trying to emphasize the software as malware. Most of Kaspersky's behavior settings are off by default.
If you want hashes of files, you could try a forensics tool like encase. But it will examine even unallocated parts of hard drive (so use a small HDD).
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.
Simple, every legit MPAA movie I've ever acquired has had a copyright notice at the start. So if doesn't have one, it must be free to share.. right?
Wait, so law enforcement has a database of kiddie porn and kiddie porn md5's? Some perverted bureaucrat found himself the right job.
It could be worse, it could be a puritan that decides whether things are child porn or not. I'd hope there's adequate controls to properly tag things as child porn.
Do they look at an image and decide "She looks under 18". What if it's an photoshop or animation? What if it's clearly a child, no naughty bits are showing but it's provocative? (There was a cd cover to an old cd that was later banned as a child pornography.. sold in the stores and everything) What if it's just youthful innocence? (Oh look our three year old is running around naked again, take a picture it's cute).
with ed2k I enter in the 2000th position in 2000 different queues
You're exaggerating ridiculously, a file with 2000 sources you should start getting within a couple minutes with emule. A file with only a few sources may have large queues that take a while.
But thats part of the design of ed2k vs BT. BT is designed for single downloads vs ed2k as batch. With BT if you're seeding 3 different torrents, you have 3 different "queues". With ed2k, when you get a queued 2000 that's probably because there's only a few sources sharing 10k+ files and the file wouldn't be present if not for these super-sharers. ed2k supports massive file shares. BT not so well, in the BT world what happens is they stop sharing, the files are unseeded and people complain that they can't get the file at all.
So the short of it is ed2k should be where you go for rare files, while BT is where you go for popular files. But BT has gotten more refined on reseeding requests and some of the clients try to balance out so unseeded files are seeded. That with the sheer popularity, BT is competing even for rare files. So yes ed2k is kind of getting antiquated as BT gets more robust.
I know, I know, they have no proof how many times it was downloaded but you have no proof it was only once.
No but it's easily possible to prove that the sharers on average are responsible for 2 copies, their own and one upload. Since there can't be more uploads then downloads, on average people will have a 1:1 ratio.
Also that'd be based on idea of suing both the downloader and uploader of a single transfer, otherwise it'd only be 1 copy.
The cost to purchase does determine damages. 30 distributions of a $1 song is $30 damages. It's insane to say the RIAA can make up whatever number they want because that's what they'd want to charge for these circumstances, they have no reason to be honest or fair. The only way to do it fairly is go off the fair market value that the market has decided.
By your notion, should Prince sue that baby one billion dollar because his baby-dancing video license is 1 billion dollars?
I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).
The cost to download is absolutely relevant, it's a way to establish damages. Your argument is the plaintiff should set the damages based on what they'd like to charge. It should be what it cost the plaintiff plus a small amount to penalize the offender. So if the person uploaded it z times, then z times the market value of the songs is a good place to start. But here's the thing, suppose 1k people download the song and all 1k people each uploaded a chunk to everyone else. Is that 1 upload or 1k uploads when they upload 1/1000th of song to 1000 people? The users (not including the initial seeder) will maintain on average 1:1 ratio of D:U, thats just nature of P2P (some will be higher, some lower) and it's an upper limit.
So absent of information that shows they were a seeder and no info on how much they actually uploaded then you can conclude with all likelihood they're responsible for 1 upload (plus the 1 download for themself). So 2x cost to download plus whatever punitive damages is an appropriate penalty. This becomes more complex if there's commercial piracy and the uploader gets ad revenue for example.
PS. My car got rearended, repairs cost $500. Since I would charge $20k for someone to hit my car purposefully, is that what I should sue for? Hey I really love my car. I'm definately owed more then $500 but its a good place to start, you tack on loss of value of car, loss of my time, etc. Otherwise I could claim any amount.
I'll take a wild guess and say that the root of the problem is a schizophrenic design, which can't make up its mind whether it wants to be a PvP game or PvE too. If you're serious about equally suitable for PvE-only players, then let me freaking buy _some_ stuff without PvP points. (I've found no vendors where you can even get a basic sword without the equivalent of "honour". And, oh, they even have the equivalent of talents bought with PvP renown.) If it's only for PvP-ers, then say that already and let the rest of us know we don't have to bother. But the "solution" of giving PvP points to everyone, whether they PvP or not, is neither here not there. It cheapens the whole thing for both.
You can buy stuff without PvP points, every chapter has a Rally master, which has rewards given for influence. Thats the PvE unlockable equipment. As soon as you realize that reknown gear is pvp gear you'll understand. In warcraft you can't buy arena gear with gold alone either.
Parking for reknown won't make significant progress based on the way it scales. When people capture objectives you don't get the same reknown as them. You get reknown when the zone is captured. Guess what, you don't need to pvp to capture zones. Nearly every action contributes to capturing zones (doing public quests for example). It's been a while since I've played wow, so excuse me if my analogy is wrong. In Alterac Valley if you collect supplies away from fight you don't get honor from it, so to encourage a focus on winning, they reward the winning team with extra honor points. Unfortunately this means the person afk at the entrance also gets those points.
There are a lot of things lacking in Warhammer (Chat system, mail system). The networking code sucks. But one thing I think they got near perfect was integrating pvp as a core part of game while still making it completely optional. There is a fullfledged PvE game that never needs to see PvP. There is a PvP game that can stand nearly on it's own with relatively minimal PvE. But they're not strictly seperate, there is a near seamless transition.
Warcraft was designed for PvE. Typically you level in PvE then PvP as you feel inclined. A level 5, just can't go do real pvp if they want to. The PvP scales horribly, and a lot of the pvp that happens at lower levels is trying to interfere with others PvE. I've never been flagged pvp unintentionally in Warhammer, that happens often enough in Warcraft.
In warcraft, after low levels, nearly all zones are contested and a larger portion of quests flag you pvp. In warhammer only small parts of zones are PvP, for the most part only quests that require going into RvR are the scout quests (which aren't a part of chains) In Warcraft if you die you're still flagged pvp, there's zone-camping and corpse-camping. In warhammer, you die you're safe again. In warcraft a level 70 can go to newbie zones and decimate them. In warhammer a level 30 is protected from level 40's as long as they don't wander into the level 40 zones.
But I understand, change scares some people. Warhammer PvE isn't the sole option. I think the real thing that has people saying that Warhammer isn't PvE friendly is that the players aren't PvE friendly. There's players out there shouting "Warhammer is a PvP game, go play wow" and then there's friends that will pressure you to play PvP. But the only thing it's lacking as a PvE game is the content every game is lacking at release (and it's lacking in the pvp front too). Wow was just as bad. Warhammer shows great potential, but if you try to compare it to the WoW of today, it loses hands down. But worse then that is when people write off things without even trying to understand them. So I'll end with one point, your PQ rant.
PQ's are there for casual players. Many of which don't understand loot courtesy (will roll need on items to vendor them, this is common to both warhammer and warcraft). Since you can't control them joining, a fair loot system has to be
I hope that all of those people who thought that getting users to blindly accept self signed certs was a good idea are starting to feel a bit stupid now...
Why should I? Explain why being vulnerable to MITM is worse then being vulnerable to MITM and passive eavesdropping? The answer is not "because of a false sense of security" because I do understand the security concerns. No really explain, I'd like to hear why being vulnerable to eavesdropping is a GOOD thing.
The people that don't know better (and can't be taught by sane warnings) are still sending their one password over HTTP. They're still posting their identity on myspace. They still click untrusted links (and they're certainly not running noscript). In other words, their accounts are already poised to be owned.
Treat Self-signed same as HTTP and provide warning bubble (not a dialog) and both sides are better off.
No people will have a choice to freely and legitimately download old content, which would be preferable to illegitimate new content. The mod community would also flourish as you could now take an old game, do a total mod and legitimately re-release it. It also becomes cheaper to make new games as some of the older engines would be public domain.
I'm of the belief if there's a free old game (being worked on by mod community) it will fulfill most peoples wishes for free gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
The child is an instrument of your will. Note - they are not acting as your agent, as a child cannot be an agent. Instead, they are your instrument, much like a pen signing your name or a cat clicking a button for you is an instrument. You are responsible for acts committed through instruments of your will.
That makes sense. If you instruct them to click "I agree" or somehow set it up so they can only click "I agree" clearly they're acting for you. But what happens if you give them a choice, you ask them to choose? Is the kid exercising their own will when you tell them "I disagree" means a long car ride back to best buy and they'll probably miss their favorite show?
Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.
The issue isn't the argument, the issue is their conflict of interest.
You shouldn't use your job as VP to award no-bid-contracts to companies you used to run.
You shouldn't use your job at DoJ to aid a plaintiff you used to represent.
It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light.
So now instead of the "making available" theory, we get to see the "assisting making available" theory.
Actually it's assisting assisting making available.
The seeders make available.
The trackers assist by providing access to seeders.
Piratebay assists by providing torrents (links) to trackers.
Substitute "Copyright Infringement" for "Making Available" if you see fit, the argument is the same.
And if that burglar steals again, he can be tried again for that new crime.
Piratebay isn't going to stop offering torrents. It's a matter of when one offense ends and another begins. Are they being charged for the system of offering torrents or are they being charged for specific torrents?
as for apps insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Do you really want to have to deal with a allow or cancel of each little thing that a installer does?
No it doesn't need to be a separate prompt for each action... but it should prompt with a complete list of system changes and ask for permission on the bulk.
why is there this preconception that linking to content that you know full well is illegal, is acceptable?
It's not acceptable, but that doesn't make it illegal. You can't legislate people to be nice.
You're a dickhead... that's unacceptable for me to say right? Would you suggest they should make it illegal to say bad words?
The soldier would only want the radar portion and only one per squad. If it can detect the trajectory of a bullet, it can identify precisely the point of origin. It makes it a lot more dangerous to be a sniper.
That was my point, it's a reasonable idea when you can expect no false positives. I used the terror watchlist as a counter example of how it can be bad when you do have significant false positives.
I think more accurately, do license plates and the ability for police to look them up assume all drivers are breaking the law?
It's not just the ability to, it's the automated constant use of it. More correct analogies:
-The TSA checking every passenger against a terror watchlist.
-Roadside cameras reading every license plate to find stolen cars and people with warrants on them.
It's all a matter of how accurate of signature it is.
Little known fact, Jesus actually had a mohawk. Now I'm off to fix his wikipedia entry.
If it is software (unlikely but possible), the only multicast protocol most switches use are the spanning-tree protocols.
CDP as well (not that it's related)
It would be really cool to know that my machine can't do anything but make sure Java, Acrobat and Quicktime are up to date.
Simple, fire up task manager to kill them... unless task manager counts as an application ;)
Elevate with the "at" command to run a command prompt interactively. Since At is run as system any child processes it kicks off inherits that.
See, I think you are part of the problem in this. On one hand, you say the RIAA doesn't deserve money from you. On the other, you illegally download their creations
Reread GP, he never says he downloads, pirates, copies or anything:
I always check RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com] before purchasing an album. If it's an RIAA artist, then they don't get any money.
The flaw in your thinking is that you read his post in the context that RIAA controls everything and that music is essential. There are plenty of places to get music legally without funding RIAA. I haven't bought a RIAA album in over 6 years. I haven't downloaded/copied any either.
Your logic is scary. "You don't support their business you must be a criminal" Profits are not an entitlement just for showing up, they have to be earned.
I've sent a drive in for data recovery before and was asked which operating system to recover: solaris or Windows NT....
A reinstall is not a drive wipe in regards to forensics. While IT may call it a wipe and refresh the data is easily recovered. It's this confusion between delete, reinstall, format, and wipe that starts unfounded rumors. Not to mention the differences between different file systems.
A wipe is a writing data to EVERY sector. A format does not wipe, a deletion does not wipe and wiping is not common practice. With the size of drives today, you'd practically have to leave it going overnight. Most drives go their whole life without ever once being wiped.
I think the way you asked your question lead to confusion, since it appears you don't care about file contents.
If all you want is diff, install diff, don't install cygwin if you're only going to use a couple tools. Most GNU tools have a windows build. http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/diffutils.htm
Some antivirus will hook write events (I know Avast can for example, I'm assuming Kaspersky can too), they do this to ask permission (allow? deny?), however if you set up the logging right, you could get a list of every file modified without it doing dialog. However if you're working against a rootkit, it may do a hook itself and skip the antivirus alltogether. However Kaspersky is pretty robust, so it could probably flag other suspicious events, which could be nice if you're trying to emphasize the software as malware. Most of Kaspersky's behavior settings are off by default.
If you want hashes of files, you could try a forensics tool like encase. But it will examine even unallocated parts of hard drive (so use a small HDD).
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.
Simple, every legit MPAA movie I've ever acquired has had a copyright notice at the start. So if doesn't have one, it must be free to share.. right?
Wait, so law enforcement has a database of kiddie porn and kiddie porn md5's? Some perverted bureaucrat found himself the right job.
It could be worse, it could be a puritan that decides whether things are child porn or not. I'd hope there's adequate controls to properly tag things as child porn.
Do they look at an image and decide "She looks under 18". What if it's an photoshop or animation? What if it's clearly a child, no naughty bits are showing but it's provocative? (There was a cd cover to an old cd that was later banned as a child pornography.. sold in the stores and everything) What if it's just youthful innocence? (Oh look our three year old is running around naked again, take a picture it's cute).
with ed2k I enter in the 2000th position in 2000 different queues
You're exaggerating ridiculously, a file with 2000 sources you should start getting within a couple minutes with emule. A file with only a few sources may have large queues that take a while.
But thats part of the design of ed2k vs BT. BT is designed for single downloads vs ed2k as batch. With BT if you're seeding 3 different torrents, you have 3 different "queues". With ed2k, when you get a queued 2000 that's probably because there's only a few sources sharing 10k+ files and the file wouldn't be present if not for these super-sharers. ed2k supports massive file shares. BT not so well, in the BT world what happens is they stop sharing, the files are unseeded and people complain that they can't get the file at all.
So the short of it is ed2k should be where you go for rare files, while BT is where you go for popular files. But BT has gotten more refined on reseeding requests and some of the clients try to balance out so unseeded files are seeded. That with the sheer popularity, BT is competing even for rare files. So yes ed2k is kind of getting antiquated as BT gets more robust.
I know, I know, they have no proof how many times it was downloaded but you have no proof it was only once.
No but it's easily possible to prove that the sharers on average are responsible for 2 copies, their own and one upload. Since there can't be more uploads then downloads, on average people will have a 1:1 ratio.
Also that'd be based on idea of suing both the downloader and uploader of a single transfer, otherwise it'd only be 1 copy.
And what you say is still wrong.
The cost to purchase does determine damages. 30 distributions of a $1 song is $30 damages. It's insane to say the RIAA can make up whatever number they want because that's what they'd want to charge for these circumstances, they have no reason to be honest or fair. The only way to do it fairly is go off the fair market value that the market has decided.
By your notion, should Prince sue that baby one billion dollar because his baby-dancing video license is 1 billion dollars?
I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).
The cost to download is absolutely relevant, it's a way to establish damages. Your argument is the plaintiff should set the damages based on what they'd like to charge. It should be what it cost the plaintiff plus a small amount to penalize the offender. So if the person uploaded it z times, then z times the market value of the songs is a good place to start. But here's the thing, suppose 1k people download the song and all 1k people each uploaded a chunk to everyone else. Is that 1 upload or 1k uploads when they upload 1/1000th of song to 1000 people? The users (not including the initial seeder) will maintain on average 1:1 ratio of D:U, thats just nature of P2P (some will be higher, some lower) and it's an upper limit.
So absent of information that shows they were a seeder and no info on how much they actually uploaded then you can conclude with all likelihood they're responsible for 1 upload (plus the 1 download for themself). So 2x cost to download plus whatever punitive damages is an appropriate penalty. This becomes more complex if there's commercial piracy and the uploader gets ad revenue for example.
PS. My car got rearended, repairs cost $500. Since I would charge $20k for someone to hit my car purposefully, is that what I should sue for? Hey I really love my car. I'm definately owed more then $500 but its a good place to start, you tack on loss of value of car, loss of my time, etc. Otherwise I could claim any amount.
I'll take a wild guess and say that the root of the problem is a schizophrenic design, which can't make up its mind whether it wants to be a PvP game or PvE too. If you're serious about equally suitable for PvE-only players, then let me freaking buy _some_ stuff without PvP points. (I've found no vendors where you can even get a basic sword without the equivalent of "honour". And, oh, they even have the equivalent of talents bought with PvP renown.) If it's only for PvP-ers, then say that already and let the rest of us know we don't have to bother. But the "solution" of giving PvP points to everyone, whether they PvP or not, is neither here not there. It cheapens the whole thing for both.
You can buy stuff without PvP points, every chapter has a Rally master, which has rewards given for influence. Thats the PvE unlockable equipment. As soon as you realize that reknown gear is pvp gear you'll understand. In warcraft you can't buy arena gear with gold alone either.
Parking for reknown won't make significant progress based on the way it scales. When people capture objectives you don't get the same reknown as them. You get reknown when the zone is captured. Guess what, you don't need to pvp to capture zones. Nearly every action contributes to capturing zones (doing public quests for example). It's been a while since I've played wow, so excuse me if my analogy is wrong. In Alterac Valley if you collect supplies away from fight you don't get honor from it, so to encourage a focus on winning, they reward the winning team with extra honor points. Unfortunately this means the person afk at the entrance also gets those points.
There are a lot of things lacking in Warhammer (Chat system, mail system). The networking code sucks. But one thing I think they got near perfect was integrating pvp as a core part of game while still making it completely optional. There is a fullfledged PvE game that never needs to see PvP. There is a PvP game that can stand nearly on it's own with relatively minimal PvE. But they're not strictly seperate, there is a near seamless transition.
Warcraft was designed for PvE. Typically you level in PvE then PvP as you feel inclined. A level 5, just can't go do real pvp if they want to. The PvP scales horribly, and a lot of the pvp that happens at lower levels is trying to interfere with others PvE. I've never been flagged pvp unintentionally in Warhammer, that happens often enough in Warcraft.
In warcraft, after low levels, nearly all zones are contested and a larger portion of quests flag you pvp. In warhammer only small parts of zones are PvP, for the most part only quests that require going into RvR are the scout quests (which aren't a part of chains)
In Warcraft if you die you're still flagged pvp, there's zone-camping and corpse-camping. In warhammer, you die you're safe again.
In warcraft a level 70 can go to newbie zones and decimate them. In warhammer a level 30 is protected from level 40's as long as they don't wander into the level 40 zones.
But I understand, change scares some people. Warhammer PvE isn't the sole option. I think the real thing that has people saying that Warhammer isn't PvE friendly is that the players aren't PvE friendly. There's players out there shouting "Warhammer is a PvP game, go play wow" and then there's friends that will pressure you to play PvP. But the only thing it's lacking as a PvE game is the content every game is lacking at release (and it's lacking in the pvp front too). Wow was just as bad. Warhammer shows great potential, but if you try to compare it to the WoW of today, it loses hands down. But worse then that is when people write off things without even trying to understand them. So I'll end with one point, your PQ rant.
PQ's are there for casual players. Many of which don't understand loot courtesy (will roll need on items to vendor them, this is common to both warhammer and warcraft). Since you can't control them joining, a fair loot system has to be
I hope that all of those people who thought that getting users to blindly accept self signed certs was a good idea are starting to feel a bit stupid now...
Why should I? Explain why being vulnerable to MITM is worse then being vulnerable to MITM and passive eavesdropping? The answer is not "because of a false sense of security" because I do understand the security concerns. No really explain, I'd like to hear why being vulnerable to eavesdropping is a GOOD thing.
The people that don't know better (and can't be taught by sane warnings) are still sending their one password over HTTP. They're still posting their identity on myspace. They still click untrusted links (and they're certainly not running noscript). In other words, their accounts are already poised to be owned.
Treat Self-signed same as HTTP and provide warning bubble (not a dialog) and both sides are better off.
No people will have a choice to freely and legitimately download old content, which would be preferable to illegitimate new content. The mod community would also flourish as you could now take an old game, do a total mod and legitimately re-release it. It also becomes cheaper to make new games as some of the older engines would be public domain.
I'm of the belief if there's a free old game (being worked on by mod community) it will fulfill most peoples wishes for free gaming.