Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cowofdoom78963]

No I dont becuase:

registration will often involve agreeing not to post copyright material?

[Virex]

Well, they did get around the "you can't patent algorithms" thing by bribing the judges ruling on whether or not the patent office could deny patents on algorithms saying "but if you, like, run this algorithm on a computer and shit, it's totally a machine and shit, man, oh and here's some money cause you're such a bro, man". So now you have patents on shit like "wrapping an image in a link" (not making that up, but my internet is too shitty to look up the old article on it in a reasonable amount of time; granted lawsuits based on it were enforced in Singapore, while it was basically laughed out of the court in the US, if I'm remembering correctly...).

Well, implementations of computer aglorythms are very commonly patented. There are a lot of patents on things like image processing etc. So there's nothing new under the sun there.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Well, they did get around the "you can't patent algorithms" thing by bribing the judges ruling on whether or not the patent office could deny patents on algorithms saying "but if you, like, run this algorithm on a computer and shit, it's totally a machine and shit, man, oh and here's some money cause you're such a bro, man". So now you have patents on shit like "wrapping an image in a link" (not making that up, but my internet is too shitty to look up the old article on it in a reasonable amount of time; granted lawsuits based on it were enforced in Singapore, while it was basically laughed out of the court in the US, if I'm remembering correctly...).

Well, implementations of computer aglorythms are very commonly patented. There are a lot of patents on things like image processing etc. So there's nothing new under the sun there.

:|
Umm... yes? Isn't that what I said, albeit with the insinuation outright statement that bribes were involved in swaying the patent office to allow algorithms to be patented under the pretense that it's not the algorithm being patented, but rather a machine (any machine!) performing the algorithm? It was either some time in the late eighties or early nineties when this was decided; prior to that algorithms were considered mathematical facts, and thus unpatentable. So, it is rather new, as such things go, especially given there are patent lawsuits that were filed before 2000 still in litigation...

For some ungodly reason I felt this was relevant to people talking about patents, and mentioning algorithms being patented.

[LegoLord]

Psyn, that court involved someone actually downloading software, and didn't even concern youtube.  Frankly I've never even heard of the site in question.  So I fail to see the point in mentioning it.

[Cthulhu]

Because it sets a precedent.

[Urist McOverlord]

Question: Should torrent sites be accountable for the information posted by their users? A well known bittorrent site recently removed the majority of its content after a court order was passed down against it. Do you feel that the owners of a website are responsible for the method in which others use it? Especially considering that registration will often involve agreeing not to post copyright material?

If the registration process or terms of use require that copyrighted material not be posted (as they very well should, if only to prevent this sort of law-thing), then they definitely have a responsibility to remove it, ban those who posted it, and perhaps seek further consequences (depending on the specifics of the deed. One copy of a youtube video or song isn't quite as bad as 50 AAA game cracks...)

At least, IMHO.

[Jreengus]

Question: Should torrent sites be accountable for the information posted by their users? A well known bittorrent site recently removed the majority of its content after a court order was passed down against it. Do you feel that the owners of a website are responsible for the method in which others use it? Especially considering that registration will often involve agreeing not to post copyright material?

If the registration process or terms of use require that copyrighted material not be posted (as they very well should, if only to prevent this sort of law-thing), then they definitely have a responsibility to remove it, ban those who posted it, and perhaps seek further consequences (depending on the specifics of the deed. One copy of a youtube video or song isn't quite as bad as 50 AAA game cracks...)

At least, IMHO.

Except for the fact that no-one ever uploads anything copyrighted to the site itself, all they get is little package telling other computers where to look for the stuff they want.

[Supermikhail]

So, according to the general laws, the bit-torrent site's owner isn't guilty of pirating, and can't be forced to give up the site's members' details, who do the pirating, and even then they can't be proven of doing the pirating, unless the authorities fish through, for example, their Internet Provider's computer (or whatever), and that's forbidden...? So, the law is being legally broken?... Why does the situation stink to me?
I wonder if there is some deep flaw in the law which somehow doesn't account for the changes that have occurred during late XX century. Or something. Maybe there is some philosophical or moral factor it ignores?... A factor the humanity still hasn't discovered about itself, or fails to acknowledge... Oh, whatever, ramblings.

Edit: Example of a factor - if it's something valuable (by whatever esteem), a human will do anything to own and hoard it, be it money, women, land, mp3s or pets. Also, memories and friends.

[Realmfighter]

[psyn]

Psyn, that court involved someone actually downloading software, and didn't even concern youtube.

At Youtube you are actually downloading something. The distinction is that the law uses the technical definition of downloading, transferring, and you see it as clicking a button to initiate a transfer. Copyright law doesn't even contain the word "downloading" IIRC.

I quoted 504(c) for a reason, and that was to point out that, even if you are found inadvertent, by virtue of the actual infringement taking place, you are liable for (reduced) damages. Even a 16-year old girl (W. Harper) was held to this, after she was found ignorant of copyright&filesharing and thought she was listening to radio. (She appealed and had the "innocent infringer" claim rejected: $750/song instead of $200 as previously found -- $20,000 more.)

... Frankly I've never even heard of the site in question.  So I fail to see the point in mentioning it.

What site? Gonzalez used the Kazaa network. mp3.com was the fair use case (which I later realized was inappropriate).

[A_Fey_Dwarf]

I don't understand this, why is everyone making it out that ubisoft is failing to stop piracy. Sure they might be losing sales but so far Assassin's creed 2 is yet to be cracked. Their latest attempt at thwarting piracy has been quite successful.

[dragnar]

Yet to be cracked? It was cracked before the game came out. They have failed. Hard.

[Rafal99]

Also what is the point of stopping piracy if they lose to sales more when they would lose to said piracy?

Edit: LOL at that gif!

[A_Fey_Dwarf]

Yet to be cracked? It was cracked before the game came out. They have failed. Hard.

Err no it wasn't, the .iso was released before it came out but there is no working crack for it yet.

[Rafal99]

yet.