401–410 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.
I love how we have to preface our approval of something foreign with "now I'm not a Nazi, but...'
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.
why would you look for torrents in search engine? you will anyway find most of them dead 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Lately, almost every conspiracy theory has been proven true." Example A: You showed it isn't true. Example B: not present on list(1) Example C: not present on list(1) Example D: not present on list(1) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories Well done.
I am not the NSA. And the comment was not meant to be understood as talking about every crazy nutter conspiracy theory aggregated into a Wikipedia page. So what are you stating with the comment? All conspiracy theories are false or did not originate on some less outrageous event?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which search engines are not "shit" in your estimation?
Maybe it's time to use those search bookmarklets again. When I think about it, many times I already know where the answer could be.
Question: does anyone actually know what DDG does with user data? Like they market themselves as a "privacy respecting" search engine, but how much of this is truth? I'd imagine there's good money in convincing people they have privacy because then they'll provide more interesting data. Has the company ever been audited? Why should they be trusted to not compromise user privacy? Imo at least Google is honest: you kno…
> Question: does anyone actually know what DDG does with user data? Like they market themselves as a "privacy respecting" search engine, but how much of this is truth? It doesn't matter. Why? Because when going through the exercise of identifying risks in the system one can't assume the actors are benevolent and won't ever use the access+data they have for evil. That's not at all to say all actors are evil and will a…
> It doesn't matter.
> Why? Because when going through the exercise of identifying risks in the system one can't assume the actors are benevolent and won't ever use the access+data they have for evil.
Storing any data in database is just asking someone to either steal it or abuse it. So only solution is to not store it, if it's not critical for operation. And if it's critical, store privacy data in encrypted form(and keep decryption keys away from database, so database breach won't jeopardize keys, like in different business unit in corporation). One such example is logs, store some of the data encrypted, and if you need it(with a really good reason) ask it to be decrypted. Also you can encrypt various forms of data with different keys, and make accessing one type easier while more privacy critical data will be harder to get access to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Atass.com&t=ffab&df=m&ia=web vs https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atass.com&tbs=qdr%3Am
Not sure what is going on with those URL params, but I see results just fine at https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Atass.com and in any case an easier way to do things is to not use a site search but just put the domain or name in the query like 'ukraine tass' and something from that site will usually come up on top.
I ditched DDG after it started to "downrank Russian disinformation". Thanks, I'll decide for myself where real disinformation belongs to. It became just another tool of western propaganda. I'm not sure if Google does that, but at least they don't paint themselves as good guys anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole point of a search engine is curation, and excluding garbage or in the case of Russia/Ukraine, making willful misinformation less prominent is an act of curation. Unfortunately it seems that in 90%+ of cases "willful misinformation" is just anything that contradicts the political views of the democrat-leaning Google management.
Please provide proof.
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…
>This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons.
ISP monopolies aren't due to copyright law but these disconnections are a consequence of copyright law: it is the only reliable way you as a third party can get an ISP to disconnect someone based on unsubstantiated allegations. Send an ISP letters claiming that a subscriber is attacking your systems in violation of the CFAA and they'll likely ignore you, maybe they'll ask you to prove it or better yet go after the person doing the hacking. Send an ISP letters claiming that a subscriber is file sharing in violation of the Copyright Act, and if they don't meet your demands (which far exceed anything prescribed by the DMCA) they're liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement [1].
>Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence.
They can, but the relevant laws and legal precedent decide whether the plaintiff can get a decent lawyer to take their case and whether the suit will survive your first attempt to get it dismissed. The doctrines we have around copyright make it easy to bring claims against infringers and get a court to hear it out. But unintentionally they allow for abuses as "small time" as internet subscribers to be dragged into multiyear lawsuits for file sharing when it later emerges that the plaintiff has - literally - no evidence [2] or as "big time" as Katy Perry getting baselessly sued for using a fairly generic sequence of chords and needing an appeals court to overturn the jury verdict against her [3]. In both of these examples, legislation or new legal precedent could raise the standards for bringing certain types of cases without hurting righteous plaintiffs. On the other hand, in both examples the righteous party eventually won. But in others they lose, or pay a nuisance settlement because the court fight isn't worth it [4]. Frivolous lawsuits are a big problem and aren't at all limited to copyright, but clearly there are features of copyright law that make it attractive for people looking to abuse the legal system.
>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. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost.
I agree that there's a very common misconception here, but there are two real issues with copyright law that are also being referenced. Copyright law makes it unnecessarily difficult to create derivative works based on very old works that would have passed into the public domain if not for relentless lobbying for longer corporate copyright terms. It might also protect "abandoned" works and works where the corporate copyright holder is defunct too aggressively, there's a good argument for both sides of that issue. But it's an argument to be had over how the law can avoid causing real problems, not a "misunderstanding" of the law.
>This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately.
The article this comment thread is under is about precisely the issue of copyright lawsuit threats being used to hide youtube-dl from search results.
>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 without oversight" refers to the DMCA notice and takedown procedure. Outside of extremely rare court injunctions, there is no authority that can monitor or stop flagrant abusers of a system whose purpose is to legally compel the removal of content from online services, which might be called a form of censorship.
>This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one.
Again, this is "first paragraph of the Wikipedia article" level DMCA. If DRM circumvention were not illegal, it would be purely a technical means, but courts have repeatedly ruled that DRM doesn't need to be any good technically speaking to have legal force.
>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.
Those authors need something else because stopping annoying archivists is not in the scope of copyright law. The purpose of copyright is to give authors a limited monopoly on the making and selling of copies of their work. And before the second half of the 20th century, we had copyright law with the understanding that creative works outside of IP law were part of the "public property", "common property", or the newer term "public domain". Now, of course, there are ways of protecting works more effectively than copyright alone by never selling individuals copies of works, only licensing them, and using legally protected DRM to discourage breaking the license terms.
[1] https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/16/malibu-media-ordered-to-...
[3] https://variety.com/2022/music/news/katy-perry-appeal-dark-h...
[4] https://twitter.com/edsheeran/status/1511631955238047751