341–350 of 475 posts
I don’t condone the actions of the Russian government; however: If you want better results from pirate sites, try Yandex.com. Quite good for finding torrents.
you are much better off with Knaben on EU domain, same results can be achieved with add-ons in qbit, then there are special software not worth my time (Jackett)
but I agree I find myself using yandex much more nowadays as alternative
I don’t condone the actions of the Russian government; however: If you want better results from pirate sites, try Yandex.com. Quite good for finding torrents.
I used to be able to find MP3s with Google, until one day it simply stopped working. Then I moved to Baidu, which worked for a while. I now use DDG to find movies, and yet looks like the curtain may be closing on that one too. I fear it might only be a matter of time before Yandex stops working too.
btw Baidu is extremely slow due to GFW
I'm just waiting for the day they announce an NFT or a "trusted partners" program with establishment media entities. Come on, DDG, you've come this far, so truly jump the shark for our amusement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain.…
No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at…
The moment an author makes something public and it gains significant traction is the moment it starts to be part of global culture instead of just only the author's.
Either publish the work with everything that it entails, including archival and assimilation of that work into popular culture, or don't publish at all. If you don't want society to archive your works, then it shouldn't even know of their existence. There's no middle-ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain.…
No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at…
It's a problem regardless. No industry should be allowed to force a 3rd party to cancel your service with them over mere accusations. The fact that there are countless examples of DMCA notices being sent in error, or intentionally sent inappropriately doesn't make the situation any better either. While I agree that ISPs should not be a monopoly and we should all have easy access to high speed connections at low prices from a large number of providers, that's not the reality we live in, it still wouldn't solve the problem since as long as there are finite amount of providers you'll still eventually be able to be kicked offline, and I shouldn't be forced from the provider of my choosing in the first place.
> Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit.
The people who decide not to publish aren't doing it because they fear random lawsuits from random people. Their fear is very specific. They decide not to create or publish their work out of fear of being sued under our overbroad and excessively punishing copyright laws.
Winning doesn't help if you're driven into debt and bankruptcy by the costs. While companies I've never heard of could randomly sue for any reason out of nowhere (a major problem on its own) the risk of that happening to me is very small. For people publishing music (even those within the traditional system) it's much much higher and it's already having an impact. (see: https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-la...)
I don't think this is unintentional. By increasing the risk of creating new works outside of relative safety of the RIAA's umbrella they can silence indie artists who don't want to sign their rights away.
> No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects.
See above - it does stop the creation of new works from people who either can't find the rights to do what they want, can't afford them, or fear the lawsuits they will face if they go ahead anyway. Sita Sings the Blues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues) is a great example of a wonderful creative original work that almost didn't happen because of our insane copyright laws. In the end, the creator was only able to get the work out to the public by releasing it for free and she's still at risk of lawsuits. I recommend reading the copyright section of her FAQ here https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html
> This never happened.
Strange take in a discussion of Duckduckgo removing links to the project form their search engine and immediately followed by how even though it was wrongfully removed before other people had forks so somehow that didn't matter. It mattered then, just like it matters now that DDG is hiding that tool from the public.
> This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight.
The censorship issue is concerning what ISPs, hosting services, and search engines are forced to remove. No company should have the power to remove content from the internet without due process and right now, that's not happening.
Youtube pulls content down all the time in response to DMCA notices that should never have been enforced and that content stays down unless the uploader invests significant amounts of time and effort getting it restored which is still not always the outcome.
So far, the US has resisted site blocking at the ISP level (something the MPA/RIAA has managed to force on ISPs in other countries) but they keep asking for that capability here as well.
Oversight doesn't come in the form of aggressive takedown demands or automated systems blindly taking down content whenever a DMCA notice gets fired off. It comes from careful evaluation of takedown notices before content is removed or sites are taken offline.
Just recently, lack of oversight caused youtube to take down people's videos after youtube got DMCA notices that were not legitimate and youtube's polices made it very hard for real copyright owner to get the issue resolved. (https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-send...)
> This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one.
If DRM was a purely technical problem, we'd be free to use purely technical means to get around it and you'd be right except that it's illegal to bypass DRM or to post tools that would allow that to happen. The law which makes it illegal is the DMCA. When youtube-dl was forced offline the action was defended under that very same __copyright__ law. Their argument was that the tool circumvented youtube's DRM. It doesn't, but that didn't stop them from trying to make that case.
> No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived.
Yes. It is. It's our culture. We all share it. If an artist wants full control over their work they should keep it to themselves. Once they release it to public it becomes a shared experience that belongs to everyone involved. Do you really believe that Superman isn't a part of our culture? That Mario Bros. isn't a part of our culture?
Copyright law was put in place to give special rights to creators for a limited time to encourage new works. Not because naturally they have the right to keep us from our culture. They don't. They needed special rights to do it. The deal was we'd accept that for the sake of new works, we would temporarily give up our rights, and in exchange once that temporary period of special rights ended, works would enter the public domain. They broke that deal with perpetual copyrights and DRM. Copyright law is being abused to hinder the creation of new works. It's time to change the system.
> There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to.
I can't force you to understand, but I'm willing to help you as long as you're willing to listen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's easy to objectively identify it as such [scams], and everyone agrees it's one. Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results? > When it comes to Ukraine vs. Russia and propaganda, it is entirely impossible to have objectivity. So should they treat every news outlet as equally ranked? Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be…
>Is it actually easy to identify all scam content? Then why is it possible to find scams in search results? I think to a knowledgable observer and moderator, sure. Algorithmically it's probably more difficult, which is why you still see it in some search results. These scams are less prone to subjectivity, which is why you rarely see Twitter uproars about a bitcoin pyramid scheme being booted off a search engine. >So…
>Yes....
>>Because I'm struggling to think of any news reporting that could be said to be free of bias or could be said to be completely objective.
>....and that is the reason for why they should be equally ranked.
Just because you can find a fault with a source does not mean that all faults are equal. For instance, the AP should probably be ranked above the National Enquirer.
> I think what people take issue with is that we're trusting these sites to determine what disinformation is. How is DDG deciding what is and isn't misinformation? Without a clearly defined process for misinformation, this becomes subjective.
It is an inherently subjective process and always will be. There are organizations that have attempted to make the process objective (i.e. fact checking organizations) but they can all be criticized as subjective as well. Pure objectivity simply isn’t possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>you know when you use their products as intended you have no privacy This isn't true. Google's privacy policy is not lax as you suggest it is.
Could you clarify a bit? If you are logged in they store almost everything, as is evidenced by Google takeout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give us a list (or partial list) of sites that are pulling scripts from duckduckgo? We can look at what they're trying to do.
I don't remember the sites; I'll try to find them again, and will share here if I do. I remember seeing 3 sites within an hour, and deciding to change the DDG setting to TEMP:TRUSTED afterwards.
In Canada, I tried searching for 2 of the sites on DDG the story said were removed, and they both still show up.