Modifying a program for your personal use probably would not constitute a violation of DMCA. If one modified the game with the intention of making unauthorized copies, that may be a violation. But the modification that displays the undisclosed content didn't do that. Modifying the game may violate the EULA but not the DMCA.
I bet they are switching IP's everytime Google gets wise and blocks them.
The script is configured to have the search term (XXX) in the URL as in "http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=XXX" and you can add it to your Firefox search toobar.
If you are concerned that they may be keeping logs in spite of their claims (probably unverifiable short of access to their servers) you are probably better off with TOR or Torpark which (as others have mentioned elsewhere) probably provide the best anonymization. The slowness factor is a concern, so for selective browsing turn TOR on and off with Torbutton or SwitchProxy FF add-ons.
On second thought, for your purpose, TOR is probably over-kill. If you are only concerned about Google keeping search results, just running your search through a proxy and disabling cookies should keep G from having any identifiable information on you...
To me, one of the biggest threats to privacy is google's logging of what I search for.
Try the Scroogle. It returns Google's results without ads and other features provided Google and they don't save search results. And you can even add the scraper to your Firefox search bar...
There is an existing client that solves both your problems and is designed to run off flashdrive: Torpark. It's a portable version of Firefox that doesn't write to your hard drive. And it uses the Tor network to bounce your signal through an onion network so the remote site will never know who/where you are. Of course that means it is slow, but pretty strong privacy. It's no VPN but it's free...
Alternatively drop him a line through his handy email page. "If you are not an Alaskan, may I suggest that contacting the elected representatives from your own state might bring about a quicker address of your issues." -- Ted Stevens
You're right. TOR bounces your connection through an onion network, so you really don't have any control over where the exit router is. That also makes it really s-l-o-w. If you want control over which juristiction you appear in, you'll want a specific proxy.
And if you really want to screw with them use TOR as your proxy. They'll have great difficulty figuring out where you are when you IP changes every 5 minuntes. Though it blocks all advertising targetted or not, Google usually thinks I'm in Germany...
"As far as getting the application to do what you what, your options are very limited. But getting it to do things you don't want, the sky's the limit! and it will be much cheaper..."
Maybe I'm getting off topic here, but hey!'s comment got me thinking about this:
Military planners have in the past tried to come up with just such a word/concept that would redefine war--sometimes with downright wacky results. And so far as I can tell none of them have met with success in terms of influencing U.S. warfighting methods on a large scale. Here is one that I like: From Psyop to Mindwar by Col. Paul Valelly and Col. Michael Aquino. It doesn't speak so much to societal change as to military change following the diasaster of Vietnam, but it seems more relvant today than ever, especially for its treatment of ethical issues...
Jim Channon's (the guy who supposedly coined the phrase "Be All You Can Be") First Earth Battalion is a more radical new age approach...
Zune sounds great if you love DRM. Let's not forget that services like (the new) Napster permit free downloads of songs, producing the illusion of free music for a monthly fee. Of course this "sharing" relies on the DRM controls in Media Player 10 so you can't actually share them with anyone. I have to suspect that any sharing capabilities on Zune will be crippled, but streaming wirelessly to nearby devices may be an allowable feature (in the eyes of the content industry) so long as nobody can record it...
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies pays artists and labels ("copyright owners") in the U.S. I have never been sure how they distribute royalties, but their page says "Chances are you would have earned royalties had you been signed up with AARC." Does that mean that your chances of accruing royalties under this right increases if you ask for them? Probably...
>open source and fsf and gnu? If someone buys soem cdr's and burn copies of free software, who gets paid?
this is a compulsory license, meaning it would not cover works distributed under other (voluntary) kinds of licenses.
I think they definitely attacked Google on this for publicity purposes, after all we wouldn't be discussing "biopiracy" if Google hadn't won. But if you review their list, most of their claims of biopiracy seem pretty valid. They're referring to companies and individuals commiting legal acts of piracy: taking genetic material, in some cases cultivated for thousands of years by indigenous peoples, and claiming it for their own. It turns the piracy model of copyright infringement on its head and accuses the rights-owners of stealing from the users.
Is it it publicity stunt? Yes. Does Google belong on this list? Maybe not. But it got me interested in a dangerous trend...
Slashdot Mirror
Modifying a program for your personal use probably would not constitute a violation of DMCA. If one modified the game with the intention of making unauthorized copies, that may be a violation. But the modification that displays the undisclosed content didn't do that. Modifying the game may violate the EULA but not the DMCA.
is anybody really surprised this is a fake? i mean look at how stoned they are!
I bet they are switching IP's everytime Google gets wise and blocks them.
The script is configured to have the search term (XXX) in the URL as in "http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=XXX" and you can add it to your Firefox search toobar.
If you are concerned that they may be keeping logs in spite of their claims (probably unverifiable short of access to their servers) you are probably better off with TOR or Torpark which (as others have mentioned elsewhere) probably provide the best anonymization. The slowness factor is a concern, so for selective browsing turn TOR on and off with Torbutton or SwitchProxy FF add-ons.
On second thought, for your purpose, TOR is probably over-kill. If you are only concerned about Google keeping search results, just running your search through a proxy and disabling cookies should keep G from having any identifiable information on you...
To me, one of the biggest threats to privacy is google's logging of what I search for.
Try the Scroogle. It returns Google's results without ads and other features provided Google and they don't save search results. And you can even add the scraper to your Firefox search bar...
There is an existing client that solves both your problems and is designed to run off flashdrive: Torpark. It's a portable version of Firefox that doesn't write to your hard drive. And it uses the Tor network to bounce your signal through an onion network so the remote site will never know who/where you are. Of course that means it is slow, but pretty strong privacy. It's no VPN but it's free...
Alternatively drop him a line through his handy email page. "If you are not an Alaskan, may I suggest that contacting the elected representatives from your own state might bring about a quicker address of your issues." -- Ted Stevens
You're right. TOR bounces your connection through an onion network, so you really don't have any control over where the exit router is. That also makes it really s-l-o-w. If you want control over which juristiction you appear in, you'll want a specific proxy.
And if you really want to screw with them use TOR as your proxy. They'll have great difficulty figuring out where you are when you IP changes every 5 minuntes. Though it blocks all advertising targetted or not, Google usually thinks I'm in Germany...
"As far as getting the application to do what you what, your options are very limited. But getting it to do things you don't want, the sky's the limit! and it will be much cheaper..."
Maybe I'm getting off topic here, but hey!'s comment got me thinking about this:
Military planners have in the past tried to come up with just such a word/concept that would redefine war--sometimes with downright wacky results. And so far as I can tell none of them have met with success in terms of influencing U.S. warfighting methods on a large scale. Here is one that I like: From Psyop to Mindwar by Col. Paul Valelly and Col. Michael Aquino. It doesn't speak so much to societal change as to military change following the diasaster of Vietnam, but it seems more relvant today than ever, especially for its treatment of ethical issues...
Jim Channon's (the guy who supposedly coined the phrase "Be All You Can Be") First Earth Battalion is a more radical new age approach...
Zune sounds great if you love DRM. Let's not forget that services like (the new) Napster permit free downloads of songs, producing the illusion of free music for a monthly fee. Of course this "sharing" relies on the DRM controls in Media Player 10 so you can't actually share them with anyone. I have to suspect that any sharing capabilities on Zune will be crippled, but streaming wirelessly to nearby devices may be an allowable feature (in the eyes of the content industry) so long as nobody can record it...
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies pays artists and labels ("copyright owners") in the U.S. I have never been sure how they distribute royalties, but their page says "Chances are you would have earned royalties had you been signed up with AARC." Does that mean that your chances of accruing royalties under this right increases if you ask for them? Probably...
>open source and fsf and gnu? If someone buys soem cdr's and burn copies of free software, who gets paid? this is a compulsory license, meaning it would not cover works distributed under other (voluntary) kinds of licenses.
I think they definitely attacked Google on this for publicity purposes, after all we wouldn't be discussing "biopiracy" if Google hadn't won. But if you review their list, most of their claims of biopiracy seem pretty valid. They're referring to companies and individuals commiting legal acts of piracy: taking genetic material, in some cases cultivated for thousands of years by indigenous peoples, and claiming it for their own. It turns the piracy model of copyright infringement on its head and accuses the rights-owners of stealing from the users. Is it it publicity stunt? Yes. Does Google belong on this list? Maybe not. But it got me interested in a dangerous trend...