Just because the file is online doesn't give you express permission to download it.
Sorry, but wrong. If it's online and pubically accessible, you certainly have a right to download it. How else could a remote machine view the file except via downloading?
What you don't have the right to do legally is to upload that file to some other remote location. That's the issue. To think of it as a book or a movie under copyright. You're allowed to make a copy into your brian of the copyrighted material, but you're not allowed to export that copy for someone else to share.
The government can kill you (at least in the US) if it doesn't like you or what you do, and publicly give itself a pat on the back for doing so. Your boss hopefully can't.
If they really want to filter the big bad Internet to keep the kiddies safe, why then don't they just hire some people to physically be men-in-the-middle? Any web request from a filtered location goes first to some intermediary who would physically have to look at the page and either allow or deny the request. This would give them accountability for each request, as each allow/deny could be logged, and in the current economically tough times could get people off the unproductive dole and get them working on important things, like protecting the kiddies and showing the electorate that the politicians are doing something (wither or not it's a good idea).
Seems like it would be a perfect plan from a politician's viewpoint. Sure it would cost a lot, but it's government money, not real money.
If iiNet is responsible for what is coming out of their network, do the users of zombie boxes have a claim then for being allowed to be infected? And if so, then don't the rest of us also have a claim for the garbage those same boxes spew into the public tubes? Great, now the ISPs will only allow us to connect using virtual machines while wearing rubber suits in a sterile room. Great, now we've broken the internet...
If the scrapper is committing copyright infringement, then how is any web browser not guilty of the same? They both work in the same manner:
1) Get entire page
2) Parse for content (either automatically, or by a human reading the interesting parts and skipping things like ads)
3) ???
4) Profit
All that means is that they (the game companies) haven't *ahem* contributed *ahem* enough campaign contributions yet to the right congress critters to remove that pesky First Sale Doctrine.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as CStrube)
Sorry, but wrong. If it's online and pubically accessible, you certainly have a right to download it. How else could a remote machine view the file except via downloading?
What you don't have the right to do legally is to upload that file to some other remote location. That's the issue. To think of it as a book or a movie under copyright. You're allowed to make a copy into your brian of the copyrighted material, but you're not allowed to export that copy for someone else to share.
Re: Re: Re: (as CStrube)
The government can kill you (at least in the US) if it doesn't like you or what you do, and publicly give itself a pat on the back for doing so. Your boss hopefully can't.
Re: Name calling. (as CStrube)
Holy chilling effect batman, now we're censoring the word cunt
Filtering (as CStrube)
If they really want to filter the big bad Internet to keep the kiddies safe, why then don't they just hire some people to physically be men-in-the-middle? Any web request from a filtered location goes first to some intermediary who would physically have to look at the page and either allow or deny the request. This would give them accountability for each request, as each allow/deny could be logged, and in the current economically tough times could get people off the unproductive dole and get them working on important things, like protecting the kiddies and showing the electorate that the politicians are doing something (wither or not it's a good idea).
Seems like it would be a perfect plan from a politician's viewpoint. Sure it would cost a lot, but it's government money, not real money.
(as CStrube)
These types of rules regarding discussions sounds like a directive straight from MiniTrue.
Re: Shakespeare would have been fine (as CStrube)
In a similar vein, try retelling the stories of the Brothers Grimm without raising the ire of Disney and see how you fare.
Re: (as CStrube)
If iiNet is responsible for what is coming out of their network, do the users of zombie boxes have a claim then for being allowed to be infected? And if so, then don't the rest of us also have a claim for the garbage those same boxes spew into the public tubes? Great, now the ISPs will only allow us to connect using virtual machines while wearing rubber suits in a sterile room. Great, now we've broken the internet...
(as CStrube)
If the scrapper is committing copyright infringement, then how is any web browser not guilty of the same? They both work in the same manner:
1) Get entire page
2) Parse for content (either automatically, or by a human reading the interesting parts and skipping things like ads)
3) ???
4) Profit
Re: (as CStrube)
So, my linux distros should get my connection to the internet removed? Now you sound like a shill for both Big Content and Microsoft.
Re: Tough t*tties (as CStrube)
All that means is that they (the game companies) haven't *ahem* contributed *ahem* enough campaign contributions yet to the right congress critters to remove that pesky First Sale Doctrine.
Re: (as CStrube)
You had me right up to
I think there's some cops and DAs who'd disagree on that one point, at least when interacting with prostitutes and dealers.
Oh Noes!!11! (as CStrube)
The original was bad enough when we had to read it in high school. Now the travesty grows.
(as CStrube)
Anyone know a good open proxy in Spain?
Re: (as CStrube)
a thing is only worth what the purchaser is willing to pay