If you put together a string of images into an order that communicates an idea to someone, and decide to charge for access to see that "video": in my books you've done nothing but hurt yourself.
That's absurd. Does the same apply to those that put together a string of words that communicates an idea, i.e. a book? There's nothing wrong with being allowed to profit off of your idea for a short amount of time. Keyword being short. I think copyrights are the correct thing, but they are WAY too long and hurt innovation overall.
Your logic is a fucking disgrace. You think that because this action was taken, all other actions were forsaken? You're about as bad as the fucking idiots that say because this action was taken, HOW LONG UNTIL THEY COME TAKE ME AWAY FOR MY THOUGHTS? You are a fucking anonymous idiot.
Complain about copyright law itself, how infringement isn't theft, how helping infringe is not equivalent to infringement or things like that and we can have a good discussion towards a useful goal. Otherwise, GFY.
No, you said "this content blocking garbage must stop", not that you would simply stop using the site or that it would become a useless service to you. You said that in a later comment, though, which I agree with.
There's a big difference between "this content blocking garbage must stop" and saying Facebook is a "useless service" to you. I agree that it probably is worthless to you. I wouldn't have even made my post if that was all you said. But instead, you said that something "must stop", like Facebook has some kind of obligation to support links to specific sites.
Never heard of the site before and it took me less than a minute to download a copyrighted music file from that site. Er, I mean, my friend did that. my foreign friend, not in the US.
Oh, and if your SITE primarily provides illegal (in the US) access to copyrighted files, I'd block links to that, also.
These people that think the Internet is lawless to US citizens and they can do whatever they want because they're not "depriving anyone of anything" need to come back to reality. Get copyright law removed and then I'll defend you, but otherwise you're breaking the law.
Facebook isn't under any kind of obligation to link to your torrent, legal or not. If you have legal content, you can link to your own SITE where users can find torrents for your content. This leaves the question of legality on you instead of Facebook. Honestly, I'd want that one level of separation if I was running a business, also.
The point was about being deprived of something, whether it's theft, borrowing, whatever, and you know it. Just because someone is not deprived of something, it doesn't make that legal. I said: "Doesn't matter if someone is deprived or not, or how easy/hard it is, you're not authorized to make a copy."
Yes, both arguments are stupid, as I said. The bill never mentions "theft" or "steal", so what's your point? I never called copyright violations theft, either, I said it's a violation whether someone is deprived or not.
Yes, primarily file sharing productions that are copyrighted in the US and require permission to be redistributed. US laws don't apply to TPB, so it won't go anywhere, but you shouldn't be able to access the site from the US.
It appears you also missed the part about the "temporary" injunction, that does take the site "down entirely" before you have a chance to appear in court, this based only on an accusation.
No, it's based on initial evidence provided to a judge who issues the order. A rubber stamping judge is a problem, but that kind of judge existing doesn't mean the bill is necessarily bad.
You're guilty until proven innocent beyond shadow of a doubt.
Your presumption of innocence only applies in the court. Cops don't assume your innocent when they pull you over for speeding. If you go to court, though, you have the presumption of innocence and the cop must prove you guilty.
Also, take a look at the hoops you must jump through to get off the black-list... I wonder if GoDaddy will charge extra for "premium" blacklisted domains?
What hoops? The bill just says the AG will "establish and publish procedures" to get removed from the list. It could be hoops or it could be as simple as a web form. There are no details.
The sites still has to have a primary purpose of infringing on copyright. A news site reporting on a security breach / exploit does not have that primary purpose. Neither, I presume, would your blog where you leak some scientology texts. The copyright owners would have to come after you some other way.
That's part of the unresolved problem. Allowing a consumer to choose a tier doesn't violate network nutrality. The ISP can only guarentee that tier across their own network though. Then the system falls apart. Is that fair to consumers? Do the ISPs care?
Require the two lanes to be proportional to each other and don't allow traffic from the fast lane to spill over into the slow lane and you eliminate this issue.
An easy solution is to require the tiers to be proportional to each other. The fast tier can only be 2, 3, X times faster than the lower tier. Improvements would then have to increase speeds on both tiers.
They announce the prefix of the real destination to some of their BGP-peers. Traffic from users flows to them if the routers of their peers accept the route and think this is the shortest path.
And how does China stop those specially selected BGP peers from advertising the hijacked routes to their peers? And from there to their peers? Etc., until the entire backbone knows China owns those hijacked prefixes? And at the same time, make sure China's legitimate prefixes do get advertised around to everyone?
Sure, they could have become transit for some networks attached to them, but I doubt that'd apply to any networks within the US or even this hemisphere.
I do not have any idea what really happened, either.
Who says they are not sending the traffic along to the real destination ?
BGP says. If you tell the Internet, via BGP, that you own x.x.x.x network, then who are you going to forward the traffic to? Who's going to send it to the "real destination" when you said, via BGP, that you own it?
You have become the real destination!
I haven't seen any report that says China became a transit network upon hijacking these prefixes. If they somehow did, then they could just sit back and watch traffic flowing through. I don't see where they did that, though. If they did, I'd love to read about it.
1) Can China redirect traffic through its network by advertising that it has the lowest cost routing path?
No, it can direct traffic to it's network by that advertising, but not through it. You can't tell the world to send you all traffic for Gmail at x.x.x.x and then slip it out a back door and say now go to the real Gmail.
Obviously there are ways to become a transit network, but it's not in this manner. For this to work, China would have to tell ISP X that it has the best path/prefix for Gmail, but make sure ISP X doesn't tell anyone else. That's not usually how peering works. If ISP X doesn't tell anyone, then China can shuttle traffic out to ISP Y who has the real best path/prefix for Gmail and become a transit network. What likely happens is that ISP X tells all of it's peers that China has the best path/prefix for Gmail, including ISP Y, eventually, and now all traffic heads to China. China can't send it back out because everyone thinks they own those prefixes and it'll just loop back to them.
No, the people that do know what they are talking about have been asking each other that question for a while. The problem is that there's no practical answer right now.
UDP traffic would keep flowing to China so long as they advertised prefixes, but they're not really going to get any good intel out of that. Maybe some VoIP packets if they're lucky, but those are likely to end after about 20 seconds when the participants hang up because they can't hear each other (all packets are going to China, not to each other).
Anyone sending TCP traffic is going to stop as soon as they don't get an acknowledgment. Or never start if they can't complete a handshake. So not much is going to be flowing here waiting to be logged. Maybe something interesting, but in reality, you're only going to capture what's put out on the Internet for the first couple of seconds, no matter how long you can maintain the prefix advertisements.
You can't tell the world to send you traffic for Gmail (advertise Google prefixes) and then when it gets to your network, shuttle it out a back door towards the real Google. If it came to you in the first place, it's coming back to you when you let it out of the network.
There's a BIG difference between what happened here and someone sitting in the middle of a network watching/logging everything that flows through.
Slashdot Mirror
That's absurd. Does the same apply to those that put together a string of words that communicates an idea, i.e. a book? There's nothing wrong with being allowed to profit off of your idea for a short amount of time. Keyword being short. I think copyrights are the correct thing, but they are WAY too long and hurt innovation overall.
-John
Your logic is a fucking disgrace. You think that because this action was taken, all other actions were forsaken? You're about as bad as the fucking idiots that say because this action was taken, HOW LONG UNTIL THEY COME TAKE ME AWAY FOR MY THOUGHTS? You are a fucking anonymous idiot.
Complain about copyright law itself, how infringement isn't theft, how helping infringe is not equivalent to infringement or things like that and we can have a good discussion towards a useful goal. Otherwise, GFY.
Stop with the stupid analogies. Just stop helping people infringe on copyrights, especially as your primary purpose in life.
No, you said "this content blocking garbage must stop", not that you would simply stop using the site or that it would become a useless service to you. You said that in a later comment, though, which I agree with.
There's a big difference between "this content blocking garbage must stop" and saying Facebook is a "useless service" to you. I agree that it probably is worthless to you. I wouldn't have even made my post if that was all you said. But instead, you said that something "must stop", like Facebook has some kind of obligation to support links to specific sites.
Never heard of the site before and it took me less than a minute to download a copyrighted music file from that site. Er, I mean, my friend did that. my foreign friend, not in the US.
LOL. really? You think the geeks talking about this will in any way compare the traffic about Glee, football or life in general?
Oh, and if your SITE primarily provides illegal (in the US) access to copyrighted files, I'd block links to that, also.
These people that think the Internet is lawless to US citizens and they can do whatever they want because they're not "depriving anyone of anything" need to come back to reality. Get copyright law removed and then I'll defend you, but otherwise you're breaking the law.
Facebook isn't under any kind of obligation to link to your torrent, legal or not. If you have legal content, you can link to your own SITE where users can find torrents for your content. This leaves the question of legality on you instead of Facebook. Honestly, I'd want that one level of separation if I was running a business, also.
The point was about being deprived of something, whether it's theft, borrowing, whatever, and you know it. Just because someone is not deprived of something, it doesn't make that legal. I said: "Doesn't matter if someone is deprived or not, or how easy/hard it is, you're not authorized to make a copy."
Yes, both arguments are stupid, as I said. The bill never mentions "theft" or "steal", so what's your point? I never called copyright violations theft, either, I said it's a violation whether someone is deprived or not.
> The DMCA's takedown system is intended for sites
> which have the primary purpose of infringing on
> copyright
Where in the DMCA does it state that? I thought it was written to address individual abuses, regardless of the sites intent.
Yes, primarily file sharing productions that are copyrighted in the US and require permission to be redistributed. US laws don't apply to TPB, so it won't go anywhere, but you shouldn't be able to access the site from the US.
So you're okay with me stealing your shit if I can say you weren't going to use it anyhow, and hence weren't deprived of anything?
It's a stupid argument. Doesn't matter if someone is deprived or not, or how easy/hard it is, you're not authorized to make a copy.
No, it's based on initial evidence provided to a judge who issues the order. A rubber stamping judge is a problem, but that kind of judge existing doesn't mean the bill is necessarily bad.
Your presumption of innocence only applies in the court. Cops don't assume your innocent when they pull you over for speeding. If you go to court, though, you have the presumption of innocence and the cop must prove you guilty.
What hoops? The bill just says the AG will "establish and publish procedures" to get removed from the list. It could be hoops or it could be as simple as a web form. There are no details.
The sites still has to have a primary purpose of infringing on copyright. A news site reporting on a security breach / exploit does not have that primary purpose. Neither, I presume, would your blog where you leak some scientology texts. The copyright owners would have to come after you some other way.
That's part of the unresolved problem. Allowing a consumer to choose a tier doesn't violate network nutrality. The ISP can only guarentee that tier across their own network though. Then the system falls apart. Is that fair to consumers? Do the ISPs care?
Require the two lanes to be proportional to each other and don't allow traffic from the fast lane to spill over into the slow lane and you eliminate this issue.
An easy solution is to require the tiers to be proportional to each other. The fast tier can only be 2, 3, X times faster than the lower tier. Improvements would then have to increase speeds on both tiers.
And how does China stop those specially selected BGP peers from advertising the hijacked routes to their peers? And from there to their peers? Etc., until the entire backbone knows China owns those hijacked prefixes? And at the same time, make sure China's legitimate prefixes do get advertised around to everyone?
Sure, they could have become transit for some networks attached to them, but I doubt that'd apply to any networks within the US or even this hemisphere.
I do not have any idea what really happened, either.
BGP says. If you tell the Internet, via BGP, that you own x.x.x.x network, then who are you going to forward the traffic to? Who's going to send it to the "real destination" when you said, via BGP, that you own it?
You have become the real destination!
I haven't seen any report that says China became a transit network upon hijacking these prefixes. If they somehow did, then they could just sit back and watch traffic flowing through. I don't see where they did that, though. If they did, I'd love to read about it.
-John
I'll give you A and D, but false BGP advertisements in no way facilitate B or C.
If you can do C, there's no need to do what's mentioned in the article, either.
So for all your blabbering, you have no point.
No, it can direct traffic to it's network by that advertising, but not through it. You can't tell the world to send you all traffic for Gmail at x.x.x.x and then slip it out a back door and say now go to the real Gmail.
Obviously there are ways to become a transit network, but it's not in this manner. For this to work, China would have to tell ISP X that it has the best path/prefix for Gmail, but make sure ISP X doesn't tell anyone else. That's not usually how peering works. If ISP X doesn't tell anyone, then China can shuttle traffic out to ISP Y who has the real best path/prefix for Gmail and become a transit network. What likely happens is that ISP X tells all of it's peers that China has the best path/prefix for Gmail, including ISP Y, eventually, and now all traffic heads to China. China can't send it back out because everyone thinks they own those prefixes and it'll just loop back to them.
-John
No, the people that do know what they are talking about have been asking each other that question for a while. The problem is that there's no practical answer right now.
UDP traffic would keep flowing to China so long as they advertised prefixes, but they're not really going to get any good intel out of that. Maybe some VoIP packets if they're lucky, but those are likely to end after about 20 seconds when the participants hang up because they can't hear each other (all packets are going to China, not to each other).
Anyone sending TCP traffic is going to stop as soon as they don't get an acknowledgment. Or never start if they can't complete a handshake. So not much is going to be flowing here waiting to be logged. Maybe something interesting, but in reality, you're only going to capture what's put out on the Internet for the first couple of seconds, no matter how long you can maintain the prefix advertisements.
You can't tell the world to send you traffic for Gmail (advertise Google prefixes) and then when it gets to your network, shuttle it out a back door towards the real Google. If it came to you in the first place, it's coming back to you when you let it out of the network.
There's a BIG difference between what happened here and someone sitting in the middle of a network watching/logging everything that flows through.