Funny how this makes me immediately think of AT&T's "competition is bad for you" that they said before. Can't even say that it's any different, considering we have legacy players and legacy businesses vs societal gain and more profits.
Umm, maybe you don't understand things, but you can't block a torrent successfully by simply continually spoofing IP addresses - people won't even connect to you and BT is designed to refuse a client if they give you corrupt/bad data (and discard the data). Even if you're rotating IPs on a 10 minute interval or something really short, you're also reducing the effect of trying to prevent the torrent from functioning.
If you're referring to faking torrents where they show thousands of users when there's none, that also doesn't do squat.
Also, what is this garbage. Hash collisions for
BT don't even matter, either. At best if you can create a hash collision that's on a SINGLE swarm. You could have the same bittorrent file shared across hundreds of different swarms at the same time, so even taking out a thousand swarms will not simply "stop the file from being shared".
It is somewhere between improbable and impossible to prevent a file from being shared on BT, it's just a question of how hard it is to find.
just using peerblocker, all of companies who are funded by MS to "take down torrents" get blocked and ignored by the p2p blocklist in peerblocker every time.
So this hype about "oh we can take down torrents"? absolutely false.
everything is a remix documentary showed that I think it was...movie industry uses 1 of 5 formulas to make a movie and that's it. Let alone copying and whatnot.
when it comes to this first amendment stuff, how can he not get it? He's the circuit court judge! This is like....unbelievable for someone in a position at such a level. It's like he does not like the very concept of transparency or accountability.
like other very common and well known settlements (see samsung +microsoft), microsoft gave them a loan to get them to agree to basically not produce android products and/or focus on windows.
This isn't about windows, this is a direct jab against android and also furthers their "everyone has settled with us and our supposedly valid patents" FUD claims.
we create them this way. What's the ages of our supreme court justices or district courts, etc?
Society has created some kind of "old = wiser" concept which is from the 1900s or earlier which doesn't reflect that wisdom and age are simply not correlated anymore, when it comes to technology.
It's not that old people can't get technology, it's that a majority of them simply choose not to.
It doesn't work in other countries, where actually the concerns of privacy aren't being widely acknowledged.
It's quite easy for someone to parrot the view and claim the follow it, it's another to be able to demonstrate they understand it (which no party which "adopts the platform" will be able to demonstrate).
while I think you're referring to audio/video, if we got rid of all copyright law it could spell trouble to a lot of different things. Audio/video/photography? definitely past it's time.
example: microsoft would no longer own copyright on any of their software, oracle would have not even a claim against google (even if it's a nonexistent claim), and GPL would be gone.
so let's not put software in the same category as the rest. Software doesn't fit for copyright as we know it at all, but that won't fix anything to just get rid of it.
its AT&T!
Funny how this makes me immediately think of AT&T's "competition is bad for you" that they said before. Can't even say that it's any different, considering we have legacy players and legacy businesses vs societal gain and more profits.
Re: Re: actually the entire situation is 100% false
Umm, maybe you don't understand things, but you can't block a torrent successfully by simply continually spoofing IP addresses - people won't even connect to you and BT is designed to refuse a client if they give you corrupt/bad data (and discard the data). Even if you're rotating IPs on a 10 minute interval or something really short, you're also reducing the effect of trying to prevent the torrent from functioning.
If you're referring to faking torrents where they show thousands of users when there's none, that also doesn't do squat.
Also, what is this garbage. Hash collisions for
BT don't even matter, either. At best if you can create a hash collision that's on a SINGLE swarm. You could have the same bittorrent file shared across hundreds of different swarms at the same time, so even taking out a thousand swarms will not simply "stop the file from being shared".
It is somewhere between improbable and impossible to prevent a file from being shared on BT, it's just a question of how hard it is to find.
actually the entire situation is 100% false
just using peerblocker, all of companies who are funded by MS to "take down torrents" get blocked and ignored by the p2p blocklist in peerblocker every time.
So this hype about "oh we can take down torrents"? absolutely false.
everything is a remix
everything is a remix documentary showed that I think it was...movie industry uses 1 of 5 formulas to make a movie and that's it. Let alone copying and whatnot.
So yeah, quality = nosedive.
exactly = where are the countersuits?
Where are the countersuits against these clearly invalid claims? Where's the lawsuits for perjury, malicious prosecution?
yep
Microsoft arguably has probably some of the best staff in the world to make an entirely open competitor to apple. Yet they simply refuse.
success in front of their nose, meet 20 years of stubbornness.
normally I thought posner was regarded as a genius
when it comes to this first amendment stuff, how can he not get it? He's the circuit court judge! This is like....unbelievable for someone in a position at such a level. It's like he does not like the very concept of transparency or accountability.
this is the best "please pirate our movies" 10 second ad aever!
Who spends minutes watching intros?
Humorously it should be noted that you don't see said warnings on netflix, or with indie movies.
there's a difference between financially interested parties and stakeholders
how hard is it to understand the difference?
on one hand you have:
people focused on making money
on the other hand you have:
people responsible for (service) being maintained, long term, etc.
how hard is it to understand that these groups are absolutely not ever necessarily correlated?
it wasn't a deal for windows, it was a deal against android
like other very common and well known settlements (see samsung +microsoft), microsoft gave them a loan to get them to agree to basically not produce android products and/or focus on windows.
This isn't about windows, this is a direct jab against android and also furthers their "everyone has settled with us and our supposedly valid patents" FUD claims.
Re:
we create them this way. What's the ages of our supreme court justices or district courts, etc?
Society has created some kind of "old = wiser" concept which is from the 1900s or earlier which doesn't reflect that wisdom and age are simply not correlated anymore, when it comes to technology.
It's not that old people can't get technology, it's that a majority of them simply choose not to.
Re:
that's a US style concept.
It doesn't work in other countries, where actually the concerns of privacy aren't being widely acknowledged.
It's quite easy for someone to parrot the view and claim the follow it, it's another to be able to demonstrate they understand it (which no party which "adopts the platform" will be able to demonstrate).
He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations
how did you miss that line as well?
"He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations"
maybe he needs to learn what copyright law does and doesn't do? there's no "right" to monetize.
would have been nice to link the techcrunch article
techcrunch link:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/02/embrace-hearing/
or was it somewhere in the article I missed?
Re:
while I think you're referring to audio/video, if we got rid of all copyright law it could spell trouble to a lot of different things. Audio/video/photography? definitely past it's time.
example: microsoft would no longer own copyright on any of their software, oracle would have not even a claim against google (even if it's a nonexistent claim), and GPL would be gone.
so let's not put software in the same category as the rest. Software doesn't fit for copyright as we know it at all, but that won't fix anything to just get rid of it.
Re: Big pharma is evil!
the sad part of this concept is - we'd be saving money in the long run if it were not for the short term profit motive by pharma.
creating artificial scarcity
this the good old tried and true "let's create a new scarcity".
uh, not quite
only one of those requires you link to facebook, which is facebook itself. The rest do not.
pinterest dropped that requirement. I was quite pissed they started with it though - it highlights a moneygrab to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
haha. nah. Mixed up Mark Kirk with Ron Kirk.
Re: Re:
ahh, my bad. wrong Kirk.