Running pi-hole it's astounding the percentage of the dns requests are for trackers/ad serving.
Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
51–60 of 106 posts
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#52As per this tool, if you value privacy visiting pornhub is many times better than visiting TechCrunch.
I wasn’t surprised that TechCrunch has so many trackers but surprised that a porn site has only one.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone agrees that this is theft No.
I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.
In Sweden everyone pays a tax on all media like empty DVD's, harddrives, phones and so on. This tax covers the private copying of media like movies and music. It is not illegal in Sweden to borrow a DVD from your friend and copy it. We actually pay a fine to be allowed to do this. The money gets distributed to the content owners by some organisation owned by the record companies.
However it is illegal to mass distribute movies on the net, like bittorrent-style to people you do not know personally. Yes it's a bit hard to define friends but if you find yourself burning copies of CD's in bulk, it's most likely not ok.
Usually the act of copying is not the problem, distribution is.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#54I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…
Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.
There are all sorts of “likeness rights” though, which are often lumped with copyrights and trademarks.
A model has rights for her likeness not to be used to promote something without her or him getting paid. It could be put under the same umbrella that no one has rights for my data.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#55As per this tool, if you value privacy visiting pornhub is many times better than visiting TechCrunch. I wasn’t surprised that TechCrunch has so many trackers but surprised that a porn site has only one.
Their database must be lacking coverage of NSFW trackers, because pornhub is full of them.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not make it theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is legally distinct. It is also morally distinct - the 'owner' of the 'intellectual property' is not deprived of their ownership if someone violates the transactional model by looking without permission. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is interference with a business model. Please stop saying obviously incorrect things.
While I agree with you, public opinion probably does not agree with you. And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. I've added a link to one such propaganda video to my original comment.
Not to pile on here, but you did claim 'everyone'. Apparently people took it more literally than you meant it.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.
I understand that bare facts cannot be copyrighted but IMO, a better test in this case is to ask whether the information has any monetary value? Because once it is under the posession of the data brokers, it's aggregated and traded like chattel.
If you were to add to title 17: "facts are subject to copyright protection if they have monetary value" -- you still have not solved the problem. Again, copyright doesn't apply to the subject of a work, it applies to the one who created it.
Also, your proposed change has made most of Wikipedia illegal.
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#58This is just like a highscore game ... 33 Trackers | 60 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=edition.cnn.com 32 Trackers | 53 Third-Party Cookies https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=wsj.com The newspaper business is digging it's own grave. "This website could be monitoring your keystrokes and mouse clicks."
39 Trackers | 91 Third-Party Cookies | Evading Trackers | (Possible) Keystroke & Mouse Monitoring https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=arstechnica.com
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#59I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…
Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.
[deleted]
Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.
There are all sorts of “likeness rights” though, which are often lumped with copyrights and trademarks. A model has rights for her likeness not to be used to promote something without her or him getting paid. It could be put under the same umbrella that no one has rights for my data.
Yes, I agree, this is a more appropriate angle. Someone who invokes their right of publicity is generally making a claim that someone has violated trademark law. This is NOT a modification to copyright law, though -- both rights exist concurrently. A photographer who takes a photo of a trademark retains the copyright to the photo, and the owner of the mark concurrently owns the trade rights to the mark.
To my point -- this idea is entirely a separate concept from copyright law. It is not a modification to copyright law.