I'm probably point out the obvious here, but many times people don't see the forest past the damn trees:
P2P is the INTERNET
P2P is what your browser does to get information...I'm really scared that if the idiots in Washington get brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA/DumbassesOfAmerica/etc then they will effectively make the internet illegal. Peer-to-peer is the core of the internet and the programs out there (bittorrent apps,kazaa,etc) are simply a variation on what a browser does...they are essentially big Google-like displays and web-servers all built into one.
I agree...I am in fact paying for all of the crap that they [the website] bloat their pages with when I download it - I pay for the bandwidth. What about the social contract that says says I won't litter someones yard with crap...I'm pretty sure they are not following that one!
That's the real story here...aside from the absurdity of the RIAA/MPA, the fact that the French idiots actually signed it is scary and gives me yet another reason to "Hate the French"...by the way, I think I'm going to make a t-shirt that says that...it will be so cool, sort of like "Vote for Pedro"-cool.
...ummm, lost my mind there a bit...with the French signing this stupid document, it worries me that the Internet as we know is going down. If these kinds of limitations are actually accepted then I don't see how the internet can survive.
Anyway, down with the French..
have a good day and flame away!
P.S. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"
"Among the pomp and grandeur of the formal state rooms at the palace, Gates will kneel in front of the sovereign, who will gently tap him on the shoulder with a sword."
I beg to differ that checksums, byte counts, etc can have even the slightest degree of accuracy. The reason is that one can compress/encode/etc the particular media file a million different ways with a million different codecs. There is no way that you could have every possible method of formulating the file available to compare to or even have the checksums to compare to. Also, the file can be encrypted for download and in that case that is even a bigger jumbled mess...there is no way to know what you are looking at is encrypted or not, zipped or not... UNLESS, you know exactly the scheme used to encrypt it or ZIP it. SO, there is no way they can prove any media file is what they say it is...
Also I fail to see how someone would be unable to make a digital copy of a movie if they already have the DVD.
Not everyone is computer knowledgeable...yes, they may own DVDs and DVD players but say they have a Laptop for travel that has only a CD player...but they want to watch a movie? If they don't know how to convert their DVD over to a AVI or MPG, then it might be easier to download it, rather then spending time to learn it....plus, there are people with computers that don't have DVD drives out there.
I may be naive, but what proof can they possibly have that
(1) someone is downloading a particular movie/song/etc and not simply a file named as a movie/song/etc? I mean, someone can simply be downloading a file containing PI to the 10,000th digit or something stupid like that? How can they
tell that what they donwload is the movie without actually looking at the file themselves? And if they are looking at the files that were download then are they not packet sniffing and hence breaking into people's computers (essentially)?
(2) Secondly, what if someone owns a particular movie on DVD but does not have the ability to convert it to avi or mpg format for his computer...he then downloads it from the internet so he can view it on his trips, etc....does he not already own the movie? How can they sue him for downloading it since he already has it, he just needed a different medium of it!!! To take that a step further...how can the MPAA prove that he doen't own any of the movies that he downloaded? Maybe he does and maybe he broke all his disks or his kid scratched them up...should he be forced to buy new ones when he already bought them before?
Seems to me, that these suits require people to prove their innocence rather than the MPAA having
to prove their guilt...that is unconsitutional!!!
Slashdot Mirror
So this search engine will simply make it easier for the RIAA/MPAA to track and send more unsubstantiated/threatening/idiot letters and suits.
P2P is the INTERNET
P2P is what your browser does to get information...I'm really scared that if the idiots in Washington get brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA/DumbassesOfAmerica/etc then they will effectively make the internet illegal. Peer-to-peer is the core of the internet and the programs out there (bittorrent apps,kazaa,etc) are simply a variation on what a browser does...they are essentially big Google-like displays and web-servers all built into one.
no, no...that was not "Hash Spoofing"...it was "Hashish Poofing"
I agree...I am in fact paying for all of the crap that they [the website] bloat their pages with when I download it - I pay for the bandwidth. What about the social contract that says says I won't litter someones yard with crap...I'm pretty sure they are not following that one!
Anyway, down with the French..
have a good day and flame away!
P.S. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"
What worries me most is that when they tap him on the shoulder, they will cut away that Borg connection he has: http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topicms.gif
I beg to differ that checksums, byte counts, etc can have even the slightest degree of accuracy. The reason is that one can compress/encode/etc the particular media file a million different ways with a million different codecs. There is no way that you could have every possible method of formulating the file available to compare to or even have the checksums to compare to. Also, the file can be encrypted for download and in that case that is even a bigger jumbled mess...there is no way to know what you are looking at is encrypted or not, zipped or not ... UNLESS, you know exactly the scheme used to encrypt it or ZIP it. SO, there is no way they can prove any media file is what they say it is...
Not everyone is computer knowledgeable...yes, they may own DVDs and DVD players but say they have a Laptop for travel that has only a CD player...but they want to watch a movie? If they don't know how to convert their DVD over to a AVI or MPG, then it might be easier to download it, rather then spending time to learn it....plus, there are people with computers that don't have DVD drives out there.
(1) someone is downloading a particular movie/song/etc and not simply a file named as a movie/song/etc? I mean, someone can simply be downloading a file containing PI to the 10,000th digit or something stupid like that? How can they tell that what they donwload is the movie without actually looking at the file themselves? And if they are looking at the files that were download then are they not packet sniffing and hence breaking into people's computers (essentially)?
(2) Secondly, what if someone owns a particular movie on DVD but does not have the ability to convert it to avi or mpg format for his computer...he then downloads it from the internet so he can view it on his trips, etc....does he not already own the movie? How can they sue him for downloading it since he already has it, he just needed a different medium of it!!! To take that a step further...how can the MPAA prove that he doen't own any of the movies that he downloaded? Maybe he does and maybe he broke all his disks or his kid scratched them up...should he be forced to buy new ones when he already bought them before?
Seems to me, that these suits require people to prove their innocence rather than the MPAA having to prove their guilt...that is unconsitutional!!!