Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Pirate?! WTF?!

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
<flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:35:57 -0500
<Kwjkg.2682$c85.1687@xxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:03:38 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:33:23 GMT, Edwards wrote:
>> 
>>> That's revenue (allegedly), not a net gain.  How do you or Erik even
>>> know that _Roy_ gets any of the "revenue" from those ads, and not his
>>> web provider directly?
>> 
>> Show me where the word "net" appears in the law.
>
> It doesn't.
>

I'm not sure it should.  Be it a posting on a Webpage or
handed surreptitiously out of a trenchcoat that needs
a nice long wash (preferably without being worn by its
owner at the time thereof), an illicit picture is an
illicit picture.  Ditto for sounds, movies, and text.

Admittedly, in the case with the trenchcoat one might
be able to detect traces on the picture that point
to the wearer of said trenchcoat ("gee, this pic sure
smells...unusual").  Digital, alas, has no such luck.

The DAT settlement long ago was interesting, though.
Basically, consumer duplication equipment detected a
subcarrier and intentionally corrupts the signal.

Perhaps it's worth considering as an option at the
higher router sublevels, as we move towards a tiered
Internet, that disallows duplication of known-copyrighted
works without authorization of some sort from the
known-copyright owner.  However, BitTorrent wipes that
out easily (the duplication is done on the user's machine
and has no "known-copyrighted" bit).

Ah well.  Information will out. :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index