Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You're gonna blow up my comp why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You're gonna blow up my comp why?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31800.html


    IMO, this is nuts.

    If I want to send a music file to a friend, I should be able to. Maybe this Kazaa and stuff is a bit much, I don't know, I don't use it. But what this says, is that if I say "Hey, wanna hear a couple Frank Marino songs" and send em to you, the FBI can litterally destroy our comps.

    Crazy!
    Garlisk's Fantasy Art Gallery
    www.usyetzer.com

  • #2
    Originally posted by Garlisk
    ... the FBI can litterally destroy our comps.

    Crazy!
    Very crazy! Maybe I should uninstall KaZaA... well, maybe. Or maybe download some cheap music with WinMX.
    Quack .

    Comment


    • #3
      I saw a quote once and I think it's appropriate now.

      "Industry will rue the day they try to destroy a hacker's computer."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Benny the man!
        Originally posted by Garlisk
        ... the FBI can litterally destroy our comps.

        Crazy!
        Very crazy! Maybe I should uninstall KaZaA... well, maybe. Or maybe download some cheap music with WinMX.

        lol, I don't think they'll care HOW you get the music. If you have music on your comp that isn't yours (how they will know whats yours on not, I don't know. I doubt they WILL know, or CARE.) they can destroy your comp.

        I think old foggies in the senate and stuff just don't adjust well to the advancing technology
        They're all over the gaming industry, as well...
        Garlisk's Fantasy Art Gallery
        www.usyetzer.com

        Comment


        • #5
          If you're seriously concerned about digital rights and the like, I suggest contributing some money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They're an interest group defending those rights, and if you want to do more than complain, they could definitely use the money. Maybe eventually they could buy their own congresscritter... *sigh*
          Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Garlisk
            <snipped> they can destroy your comp.
            Nonsense. The RIAA is spreading enough FUD as it is. Don't add to it.
            Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's the other side:

              http://www.house.gov/berman/

              To me, it is not as bad as the article make it appear. Moslty it is about redefiing some terms and setting a framework to prosecute piracy crimes. We thionk Kazza, but I like the reference to needlework hobbyists to. Might also be a first step at getting spammers. It definitly is geared to attack those who use a virus to turn unspecting servers inot porn or spam relay sights (to hide their true source). Could find nothing about destroying computers though.
              Give some taffer fire, and you'll keep him warm for the night with one less reason to cause trouble for the master.
              Set a taffer on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life, and have no need to bother the master.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Thebos
                To me, it is not as bad as the article make it appear. Moslty it is about redefiing some terms and setting a framework to prosecute piracy crimes.
                Read carefully what terms are being defined, and how. Sharing copyrighted files would be a felony under this bill, grouped with murder, rape, and kidnapping. No longer would the prosecution have to prove that a shared file was actually downloaded -- it would be assumed that it had been, and that it had been extensively.

                Also, remember that this bill isn't going to be past. Standard Congressional tactic is to propose a bill that's way out there, and then compromise down to something -- that while still horribly wrong -- is better that the first proposal.

                Originally posted by Thebos
                We thionk Kazza, but I like the reference to needlework hobbyists to. Might also be a first step at getting spammers.
                No. Antispam legislation is a bad idea. Spam is a technical problem, not a legal one. Trying to force a legal solution to a technical problem -- sending mail without any authentication, which is the real issue -- will cause substantial headaches and issues. For just a brief idea of the issue, try to define spam. Not quite as easy as you think.

                Originally posted by Thebos
                It definitly is geared to attack those who use a virus to turn unspecting servers inot porn or spam relay sights (to hide their true source). Could find nothing about destroying computers though.
                No. It's geared to support the failing business model of a monopolistic conglomerate by legislation that will be a significant detriment to the common man. Don't be deluded my the rhetoric -- the RIAA is fighting to make money, not to defend anyone. Their attitude of assuming their potential customers are criminals, the absurd legislation they have proposed, and their scare tactics make this clear.
                Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  OOH! I get to play Devils Advocate! Bonzai!

                  Originally posted by DarkBill
                  Sharing copyrighted files would be a felony under this bill, grouped with murder, rape, and kidnapping. No longer would the prosecution have to prove that a shared file was actually downloaded -- it would be assumed that it had been, and that it had been extensively.
                  True. Section 301 forces it to the 10 copy/$2500 value that currently constitutes a felony if they make available for public download. The concept is you have to prove beyond a doubt the intent to share. If this bill actually were to pass (though I would say you are right about the tactic used) that might be cause for concern to little folk sharing stuff with a few friends. Law enforcment reality has dictated that the small fries are ignored while those doing a serious hurting on a company should start sweating.

                  Originally posted by DarkBill
                  No. Antispam legislation is a bad idea. Spam is a technical problem, not a legal one. Trying to force a legal solution to a technical problem -- sending mail without any authentication, which is the real issue -- will cause substantial headaches and issues. For just a brief idea of the issue, try to define spam.
                  Spam: Large scale, unsolicted electronic correspondances (At least thats what I go by). I agree in part. I actually do not think all spam is bad. I have no problem with companies that send information/advertisements if they do so in such away that I can reply to them (and them alone) and say "please, no more, not interested." Forcing companies to work that way is were the legislation comes in.

                  Originally posted by Thebos
                  It definitly is geared to attack those who use a virus to turn unspecting servers inot porn or spam relay sights (to hide their true source). Could find nothing about destroying computers though.
                  I refer to section 302 here. This is something I do not like and would like to see something done about.

                  Originally posted by DarkBill
                  No. It's geared to support the failing business model of a monopolistic conglomerate by legislation that will be a significant detriment to the common man. Don't be deluded my the rhetoric -- the RIAA is fighting to make money, not to defend anyone.
                  Yep. Is not greed a wonderful thing?
                  Give some taffer fire, and you'll keep him warm for the night with one less reason to cause trouble for the master.
                  Set a taffer on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life, and have no need to bother the master.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So... if I don't share, but download... I can't really get in that much trouble.

                    Heh.
                    The only constant is change.
                    (And I wouldn't have it any other way.)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CrouchingDork
                      So... if I don't share, but download... I can't really get in that much trouble.

                      Heh.

                      And what makes you think that?
                      Garlisk's Fantasy Art Gallery
                      www.usyetzer.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Garlisk
                        Originally posted by CrouchingDork
                        So... if I don't share, but download... I can't really get in that much trouble.

                        Heh.

                        And what makes you think that?
                        He's a Canadian. What did you expect?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Details are sketchy but it appears that the legislation would simply assume that any P2P activity with a copyrighted file involves more than ten copies and represents a retail value of $2,500, automatically making it a felony and bringing in the possibility of incarceration. That's ten copies and a minimum of $2,500 assumed per individual file, we believe."



                          I know, I'm just kind of twisting it around. I don't seriously think that, but that's what I'll tell the bums if they try to sue me.

                          And Swiss... you don't wanna go there. Aside from the general IQ of Canadians being higher, and the average weight being lower, there's a lot of crap that I could pwn j00 with about Canada being better. But I don't wanna get started....
                          The only constant is change.
                          (And I wouldn't have it any other way.)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Damn Democrats.
                            Creator of Thief Gir.
                            [E.D.G.] "Eaves Droppers Guild - We're on the EDGE"
                            --==[The shadow's call is hard to ignore]==--

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CrouchingDork
                              "Details are sketchy but it appears that the legislation would simply assume that any P2P activity with a copyrighted file involves more than ten copies and represents a retail value of $2,500, automatically making it a felony and bringing in the possibility of incarceration. That's ten copies and a minimum of $2,500 assumed per individual file, we believe."



                              I know, I'm just kind of twisting it around. I don't seriously think that, but that's what I'll tell the bums if they try to sue me.

                              And Swiss... you don't wanna go there. Aside from the general IQ of Canadians being higher, and the average weight being lower, there's a lot of crap that I could pwn j00 with about Canada being better. But I don't wanna get started....
                              I believe my point was about Canadian conservatism being quite liberal in the US... That, and how often non-americans assume they are immune from the US' big bad corporations.

                              Oh, and please send some of that crap down here, to Vancouver.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X