The point is she was forced to do something sexual (participate in a pornographic videotape) against her will. Could it have been worse? Yes, and I never said it couldn't. That doesn't change the fact that she was sexually exploited.
True, I would be inclined to trust the other account though. It sounds like either they got the ages mixed up (the other account has the guy being 17) or at some point during all of this she had a birthday.
The point is that the DMCA limits the liability of a service provider for the content it provides (as long as it takes certain steps once notified of its content). In this context, the law would likely limit the legal liability for companies like Baazee for the content that is published under it.
Its funny, for all the bitching people like to do with regard to the DMCA, very few people actually know what it says.
"Would it be rape if a hidden captured a politician taking a bribe, be it in a string operation run by the police or by individuals?"
There is nothing even remotely sexual in that instance, so no it would not.
"It's definitely nothing like a rape."
Do I have to define the word "tantamount" for you?
"Now, as for your example example, if a girl gives consent for sex, she's giving consent for sexual intercourse unless there's a reasonable context that she knows sex means S such a context would mean that they'd discussed in the past sex and S&M and agreed on it."
Would you mind rewording that? It doesn't make much sense. For the record, the S in S&M does not stand for sex. Furthermore, the girl in the example had not consented to S&M, that was the point of the example.
"There's also the point that if S&M was initiated against her will, she could/would disagree with it. So, in all probability she'd vocally disagree to the act which would remove any claim of consent."
In the India example the video was by all acounts I've heard against her will. She couldn't vocally disagree because she was not aware what he was doing. For our analogy, imagine that in the S&M example one of the first things the guy does is gag her, thus preventing her from vocally disagreeing with anything.
"But this loss of trust (and whatever embarrassment/humiliation comes out of it) happens in relationships that end all the time."
This is a bit more than someone cheating on their girlfriend or breaking a promise to do something. The girl was sexually exploited.
"But misusing a very serious word as rape to try to analogize the circumstance described does nothing but weaken the perceived inhumaneness of rape."
I guess I do have to define the word "tantamount" for you. I guess I just thought it was a commonly known word.
tantamount
adj.
Equivalent in effect or value: a request tantamount to a demand.
The distribution of the tape is taking the act to a level where the girl did not give her consent. Imagine if a girl gave consent for sex and then the guy strapped her down and gave her the full S&M treatment (against her will). Did the fact that she consented to sex mean she chose to participate in the S&M?
And I for one will metamoderate that +5 down as soon as possible.
A 16 year old girl was filmed having sex without her consent. Thats tantamount to rape. Hell in much of the world (including many states here in the US) that is rape by definition. Its one thing to defend Bajaj, but to condone this is unacceptable.
I know this post was meant to be a joke, but some things are not funny. Rape being one of them.
When most think of the DMCA, they are usually too busy worrying about the illegalization of hacking into copyright controls that they forget that one of the main features of the law is that it limits liability of service providers over content distributed over it.
"If managed correctly, they do. Someone who hacks the site does not have access to the signing key. Any binary they modify will not pass any signature check."
Are you saying that it is impossible for a skilled hacker to get access to the signing key?
"Great. Now show me how the average person gets access to that information. The "download" button on the site takes you to a mirror, not to the mozilla ftp site."
Send your browser over to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/. No, it may not be the easiest method, but the logical definition of "necessary" is not "the easiest way to do something".
Ok, lets instead pretend they electronically steal money out of your bank account. No damage to actual property, no tresspassing, etc. Lets further imagine that they are not planning to profit from this action and instead are just going to give the money away, sort of like a high tech Robin Hood. Clearly what they have done is wrong, but should you be limited to civil remedies? I imagine that you would lack the resources to get a legal team to track down these merry men, just as the average copyright holder (read: not a member of the RIAA/MPAA) most likely lacks the resources to get a legal team to track down pirates.
Fact is they need a warrant signed by a judge to do a search without me knowing, and thus your argument is nothing more than a sorry excuse of a strawman.
" I'd be interested to hear your refutations - I'm aware that I'm a little biased on this topic, which is a Bad Thing."
You have my email address, just make sure you descramble it from/.'s anti-spam modification, feel free to email me.
"I'm angry at the legislators and lobbyists who put the police in a position where doing their job is not in the best interests of society."
Well you have a perfect right to be angry at them and in fact you have a course of action you can take regarding that anger. We live in a democracy, remember? My origional post was in response to the wording in the article summary stating that the police doing their job is a scary thing.
" So your answer is "just download it and pray that the site you're getting it from hasn't been 0wn3d?""
Signatures do not guard you against that either. In fact nothing can really guard you against someone getting at it from the inside. Well, one thing can. Downloading and inspecting the source and compiling it yourself.
Your previous post stated that you only trust software downloaded from mozilla.org. I found a way you can get firefox straight from mozilla.org. Case closed.
"99% of the time that is probably sufficient. It's the remaining 1% of the time that hurts."
Its quite a bit less than 1% of the time.
"
Ordering a phsyical cd would be sufficient. But that isn't a download, now is it?"
RTFA. The origional quote did not use that qualifier.
You are free to argue that and such a matter is a topic the legislature should consider. I'm sure there are valid reasons for both sides. You don't want to waste police resources, but on the other hand you want to give artists a chance to survive in the digital age (remember, not all copyright holders have the big guns known as the RIAA and MPAA writing cease and desist orders, how would you feel if your stereo were stolen and all the cops did was say "Call your lawyers and sue the guy who did it"?).
But as it is, such action is criminal under our current law and as such the police should be expected to enforce it.
You know what I mean, dumbass. Bickering over semantics proves nothing.
Besides, copyrighted materials are not, in the context of copying for purposes other than distribution, "protected works". Thus the statement "copying protected works is illegal" remains true.
Did it ever cross your mind that the young man might not want his parents acessing his personal email account? That maybe people do have a right to some privacy in this world, even when dead?
Holy crap, am I, the guy who has defended the government's right to put up surveillence cameras in public places and who sees nothing wrong with the PATRIOT Act, actually defending privacy rights on/.?
I could easily refute each and every one of your arguments, but as I said, this is/. and I actually do place a small amount of value on my karma.
Point is, the police do not make the laws. They enforce them. Thats it. If their job was to do whatever they can that will be "in the best interests of our society", we would have much stricter job requirements. Making it through the police academy does not qualify one to be able to rightly make all the decisions that would be necessary should that be their job. Instead we have elected leaders make the laws, and the police force enforce them.
Well if you are that paranoid, you can always download it straight from mozilla.org or find a mirror which you do trust and download straight from it. Or just order the physical CD (thats probably how you had IE installed, isn't it?).
See, multiple ways to trust the software without needing a signature. Thus the claim that a signature is a logical necessity is just plain false.
You can criticize the law all you want, I'm not about to debate the pros and cons of IP law on/. (hey, my karma has to be worth something), but the fact is copying protected works is illegal. Thus it is the job of the cops to enforce that law.
Thats what law enforcement agents exist for. To enforce the law. If in these cases the law was indeed broken (I don't personally know the details), then they were doing their job.
What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?
The so-called Reflex study, conducted by 12 research groups in seven European countries, did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is needed to see if effects can also be found outside a lab.
No, its not perfect, of course neither are PGP signatures. The point is there are a variety of ways you can convince yourself something is safe without a signature, thus his claim that they are a necessary step is logically false. Yes, PGP sigantures may be a good way to determine whether or not something is what you think it is, but that is far from being a necessary condition.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is she was forced to do something sexual (participate in a pornographic videotape) against her will. Could it have been worse? Yes, and I never said it couldn't. That doesn't change the fact that she was sexually exploited.
True, I would be inclined to trust the other account though. It sounds like either they got the ages mixed up (the other account has the guy being 17) or at some point during all of this she had a birthday.
Its funny, for all the bitching people like to do with regard to the DMCA, very few people actually know what it says.
There is nothing even remotely sexual in that instance, so no it would not.
"It's definitely nothing like a rape."
Do I have to define the word "tantamount" for you?
"Now, as for your example example, if a girl gives consent for sex, she's giving consent for sexual intercourse unless there's a reasonable context that she knows sex means S such a context would mean that they'd discussed in the past sex and S&M and agreed on it."
Would you mind rewording that? It doesn't make much sense. For the record, the S in S&M does not stand for sex. Furthermore, the girl in the example had not consented to S&M, that was the point of the example.
"There's also the point that if S&M was initiated against her will, she could/would disagree with it. So, in all probability she'd vocally disagree to the act which would remove any claim of consent."
In the India example the video was by all acounts I've heard against her will. She couldn't vocally disagree because she was not aware what he was doing. For our analogy, imagine that in the S&M example one of the first things the guy does is gag her, thus preventing her from vocally disagreeing with anything.
"But this loss of trust (and whatever embarrassment/humiliation comes out of it) happens in relationships that end all the time."
This is a bit more than someone cheating on their girlfriend or breaking a promise to do something. The girl was sexually exploited.
"But misusing a very serious word as rape to try to analogize the circumstance described does nothing but weaken the perceived inhumaneness of rape."
I guess I do have to define the word "tantamount" for you. I guess I just thought it was a commonly known word.
Not "like" or "a type of" or "the same as".
The sex was consentual. The filming of it was not. That is where the problem lies.
The distribution of the tape is taking the act to a level where the girl did not give her consent. Imagine if a girl gave consent for sex and then the guy strapped her down and gave her the full S&M treatment (against her will). Did the fact that she consented to sex mean she chose to participate in the S&M?
A 16 year old girl was filmed having sex without her consent. Thats tantamount to rape. Hell in much of the world (including many states here in the US) that is rape by definition. Its one thing to defend Bajaj, but to condone this is unacceptable.
I know this post was meant to be a joke, but some things are not funny. Rape being one of them.
When most think of the DMCA, they are usually too busy worrying about the illegalization of hacking into copyright controls that they forget that one of the main features of the law is that it limits liability of service providers over content distributed over it.
Are you saying that it is impossible for a skilled hacker to get access to the signing key?
"Great. Now show me how the average person gets access to that information. The "download" button on the site takes you to a mirror, not to the mozilla ftp site."
Send your browser over to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/. No, it may not be the easiest method, but the logical definition of "necessary" is not "the easiest way to do something".
Ok, lets instead pretend they electronically steal money out of your bank account. No damage to actual property, no tresspassing, etc. Lets further imagine that they are not planning to profit from this action and instead are just going to give the money away, sort of like a high tech Robin Hood. Clearly what they have done is wrong, but should you be limited to civil remedies? I imagine that you would lack the resources to get a legal team to track down these merry men, just as the average copyright holder (read: not a member of the RIAA/MPAA) most likely lacks the resources to get a legal team to track down pirates.
Fact is they need a warrant signed by a judge to do a search without me knowing, and thus your argument is nothing more than a sorry excuse of a strawman.
Got a warrant signed by a judge? Or was that just supposed to be a sorry excuse for a strawman?
You have my email address, just make sure you descramble it from /.'s anti-spam modification, feel free to email me.
"I'm angry at the legislators and lobbyists who put the police in a position where doing their job is not in the best interests of society."
Well you have a perfect right to be angry at them and in fact you have a course of action you can take regarding that anger. We live in a democracy, remember? My origional post was in response to the wording in the article summary stating that the police doing their job is a scary thing.
Signatures do not guard you against that either. In fact nothing can really guard you against someone getting at it from the inside. Well, one thing can. Downloading and inspecting the source and compiling it yourself.
Your previous post stated that you only trust software downloaded from mozilla.org. I found a way you can get firefox straight from mozilla.org. Case closed.
"99% of the time that is probably sufficient. It's the remaining 1% of the time that hurts."
Its quite a bit less than 1% of the time.
" Ordering a phsyical cd would be sufficient. But that isn't a download, now is it?"
RTFA. The origional quote did not use that qualifier.
There are limited contexts in which the fair use clause allows the copying of copyrighted materials.
But as it is, such action is criminal under our current law and as such the police should be expected to enforce it.
Besides, copyrighted materials are not, in the context of copying for purposes other than distribution, "protected works". Thus the statement "copying protected works is illegal" remains true.
Holy crap, am I, the guy who has defended the government's right to put up surveillence cameras in public places and who sees nothing wrong with the PATRIOT Act, actually defending privacy rights on /.?
Point is, the police do not make the laws. They enforce them. Thats it. If their job was to do whatever they can that will be "in the best interests of our society", we would have much stricter job requirements. Making it through the police academy does not qualify one to be able to rightly make all the decisions that would be necessary should that be their job. Instead we have elected leaders make the laws, and the police force enforce them.
Covering your ears and screaming "La la la, I can't hear you" doesn't mean copyright laws don't exist.
See, multiple ways to trust the software without needing a signature. Thus the claim that a signature is a logical necessity is just plain false.
You can criticize the law all you want, I'm not about to debate the pros and cons of IP law on /. (hey, my karma has to be worth something), but the fact is copying protected works is illegal. Thus it is the job of the cops to enforce that law.
What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?
In other words, no news here, move along.
No, its not perfect, of course neither are PGP signatures. The point is there are a variety of ways you can convince yourself something is safe without a signature, thus his claim that they are a necessary step is logically false. Yes, PGP sigantures may be a good way to determine whether or not something is what you think it is, but that is far from being a necessary condition.