If the video was fair use I wonder why it has been removed? The second video in this post is no longer available. it would be amazing if it was because of a DMCA take-down request after a judge already ruled it was ok.
No, piracy doesn't remove the possibility of rewards for your work. In many cases the people that download, for example an MP3, would not otherwise pay for that work. In a lot of cases they wouldn't have even known about the artist/work in the first place.
I used to download music, but now usually listen to music on YouTube, or some other streaming service, since that is easier than downloading music in a lot of cases. A lot of the times I would just go to Napster or something like that and just search for, and download, maybe 100 or so songs at a time just by searching for 'remix' or something general.
Sure in many cases it would be a song by an artist I have already heard of, but a lot of those songs would be by people I have never heard of, and a lot of those artists were very good. It wouldn't be fair for anyone to say my download took anything away from them, because up until I downloaded that song they were unknown to me. But now I probably visit their website, facebook page, YouTube videos, or follow them on Twitter. So while they didn't lose anything from my download, they did gain something.... Another fan.
I remember playing an online game where they set up different methods of password protection to see how many you could get through. It was all on the same server, and it really was a game, all you got by cracking through one level of security was the next level.
The very first level was protected by JavaScript, with the user and pass stored in an external JavaScript file. I thought it was a joke, that nobody would be dumb enough to use something as insecure as that to protect something even mildly important, so I went on a hunt.
With the number of websites on the internet I didn't want to just start randomly searching, so I picked a bunch of local businesses or organizations. I opened a bunch of these sites and looked for a login area. After looking at the source code of the login page on most of them I assumed I was right, none of them used anything even close to as insecure as what I had been reading about. That was until one of the last ones, the local hospital.
They had a section called "Staff", with a login page. When I checked the code I saw some obvious JavaScript that was meant to check the entered username and password against some other values, values that were stored as JavaScript variables. So I went looking through the code, and had to take a second look, when they embedded their external JavaScript file they didn't give the file an extension, and they called it "JavaScript" I guess as a way to throw off anyone looking around.
So in the code there was src="JavaScript" instead of the usual src="somefile.js" which is easier to see.
I was a bit hesitant at first because I was expecting medical information or something. But I figured that if someone else found it they could do much worse than I would, because I wasn't doing anything except looking.
So I checked the JavaScript file and was even more surprised to find that there was only one login name and password, meaning that everyone that used it used the same account.
So I logged in and found that it was just a repository for all of the official hospital stationary and logos and stuff like that. Images, Word Documents, everything. There was nothing at all stopping me from downloading official letterhead, brochures, logos, or anything else I wanted to be able to create fake hospital documents.
I sent them an e-mail right away to let them know about it. I never heard one word from them, they didn't even acknowledge that they received my message. However, the very next day when I checked the login page again it was all changed and used some sort of PHP login system.
So it makes no sense to jump on the messenger in these cases, it just makes people less likely to report these kinds of issues to you, which could potentially cause way more trouble down the road. Just fix the problem and move on, no need to let the issue linger on.
To the Anonymous COWARD that said "Good on them! When the veil of anonymous is pulled away from these people, they might think twice about breaking the law."
I would be very interested in knowing if you would have the same opinion if it were something you were involved in. It's people like you that make this world what it is. I guess you also agree with Yahoo when they gave the Chinese Government info that landed an activist in jail.
Senior citizens should keep their opinions to themselves if they are misinformed on the situation. When you agree that a private company should be able to find the identities of someone just for watching a video, and then probably try to get them to settle for a ridiculously high amount, then you obviously have your head in your ass, or work for the **AA.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sherwin F.
Re: Re: Luxury Basics
Awesome, haha.
And fish? Luxury @fish? WTH?
Today's Menu
@fish and @chips, @fries, and a side of @unbelievable.
If the video was fair use I wonder why it has been removed? The second video in this post is no longer available. it would be amazing if it was because of a DMCA take-down request after a judge already ruled it was ok.
Re: And if widely pirated, then that system will collapse too!
No, piracy doesn't remove the possibility of rewards for your work. In many cases the people that download, for example an MP3, would not otherwise pay for that work. In a lot of cases they wouldn't have even known about the artist/work in the first place.
I used to download music, but now usually listen to music on YouTube, or some other streaming service, since that is easier than downloading music in a lot of cases. A lot of the times I would just go to Napster or something like that and just search for, and download, maybe 100 or so songs at a time just by searching for 'remix' or something general.
Sure in many cases it would be a song by an artist I have already heard of, but a lot of those songs would be by people I have never heard of, and a lot of those artists were very good. It wouldn't be fair for anyone to say my download took anything away from them, because up until I downloaded that song they were unknown to me. But now I probably visit their website, facebook page, YouTube videos, or follow them on Twitter. So while they didn't lose anything from my download, they did gain something.... Another fan.
I remember playing an online game where they set up different methods of password protection to see how many you could get through. It was all on the same server, and it really was a game, all you got by cracking through one level of security was the next level.
The very first level was protected by JavaScript, with the user and pass stored in an external JavaScript file. I thought it was a joke, that nobody would be dumb enough to use something as insecure as that to protect something even mildly important, so I went on a hunt.
With the number of websites on the internet I didn't want to just start randomly searching, so I picked a bunch of local businesses or organizations. I opened a bunch of these sites and looked for a login area. After looking at the source code of the login page on most of them I assumed I was right, none of them used anything even close to as insecure as what I had been reading about. That was until one of the last ones, the local hospital.
They had a section called "Staff", with a login page. When I checked the code I saw some obvious JavaScript that was meant to check the entered username and password against some other values, values that were stored as JavaScript variables. So I went looking through the code, and had to take a second look, when they embedded their external JavaScript file they didn't give the file an extension, and they called it "JavaScript" I guess as a way to throw off anyone looking around.
So in the code there was src="JavaScript" instead of the usual src="somefile.js" which is easier to see.
I was a bit hesitant at first because I was expecting medical information or something. But I figured that if someone else found it they could do much worse than I would, because I wasn't doing anything except looking.
So I checked the JavaScript file and was even more surprised to find that there was only one login name and password, meaning that everyone that used it used the same account.
So I logged in and found that it was just a repository for all of the official hospital stationary and logos and stuff like that. Images, Word Documents, everything. There was nothing at all stopping me from downloading official letterhead, brochures, logos, or anything else I wanted to be able to create fake hospital documents.
I sent them an e-mail right away to let them know about it. I never heard one word from them, they didn't even acknowledge that they received my message. However, the very next day when I checked the login page again it was all changed and used some sort of PHP login system.
So it makes no sense to jump on the messenger in these cases, it just makes people less likely to report these kinds of issues to you, which could potentially cause way more trouble down the road. Just fix the problem and move on, no need to let the issue linger on.
To the Anonymous COWARD that said "Good on them! When the veil of anonymous is pulled away from these people, they might think twice about breaking the law."
I would be very interested in knowing if you would have the same opinion if it were something you were involved in. It's people like you that make this world what it is. I guess you also agree with Yahoo when they gave the Chinese Government info that landed an activist in jail.
Senior citizens should keep their opinions to themselves if they are misinformed on the situation. When you agree that a private company should be able to find the identities of someone just for watching a video, and then probably try to get them to settle for a ridiculously high amount, then you obviously have your head in your ass, or work for the **AA.