Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#171

Post by javert »

polymatter wrote: post #152
javert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, precisely, like physics. I can't justify that claim on HN, for the same reason I can't prove the contents of Physics 101 on HN. If you're curious about my claims, you'll have to go investigate more on your own.

In the case that I am not replying to a troll, can you provide any links or references? If I wanted to research your point of view, where should I begin? You may not be able to prove Physics 101 on HN, but you could link you to Feynman's lectures on Physics which would get the interested layman started. That's the sort of thing I'm asking for, for this pro-IP viewpoint.

I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1].

Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property.

Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic.

[1] http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_...

[2] http://aynrandlexicon.com/

Feel free to get in touch if you want to follow up.

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#172

Post by 18pfsmt »

javert wrote: post #171
polymatter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case that I am not replying to a troll, can you provide any links or references? If I wanted to research your point of view, where should I begin? You may not be able to prove Physics 101 on HN, but you could link you to Feynman's lectures on Physics which would get the interested layman started. That's the sort of thing I'm asking for, for this pro-IP viewpoint.

I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1]. Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property. Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic.…

If you were the only person left on the earth, copyrights wouldn't matter anymore. You can't say the same for the laws of physics.

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#174

Post by javert »

18pfsmt wrote: post #172
javert wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1]. Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property. Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic.…

If you were the only person left on the earth, copyrights wouldn't matter anymore. You can't say the same for the laws of physics.

True. I'm not saying that property rights are the same as physics.

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#175

Post by m_for_monkey »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #141
m_for_monkey wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is really a serious problem, then they should send an informative email to every user, say once every week about spamming, phising, passwords, etc. Of course, it should be easy opt out. Moreover, when I last used Windows (XP, 2008), executables could still masquerading as .doc files. This would be easy enough to solve for MS, I think.

> then they should send an informative email to every user, say once every week about spamming, phising, passwords, etc. Which would be annoying. Users would either block it or ignore it. > Of course, it should be easy opt out. If it was easy enough, everyone would, rendering it useless.

If the e-mails are well-written, they will like it. You can't protect people from their own stupidity. Except maybe with censoring like this, but then we have another problem.

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#177

Post by VMG »

tikhonj wrote: post #137
VMG wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is fascinating to me is the hypocrisy. Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished. You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content. Much…

Supporting the GPL but not copyright in general is actually a completely valid stance. The GPL is the inverse of copyright--copyright normally protects the rights of distributors at the expense of customers; the GPL protects the rights of customers at the "expense" of distributors (this is why commercial companies don't like GPL software). The fact that the GPL is based on copyright is incidental. In fact, I suspect…

It still rests on the assumption that content creators can set the terms for the use of their products. Something that is disregarded by the hacker community when it comes to films and music.

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#178

Post by batista »

batista wrote: post #133
apawloski wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to call you out, but what other moves are you thinking of (legitimately curious)?

Well, off the top of my head: 1) The "third party cookies block" championed by Safari for one. 2) Refusing to let the publishers get user info without the user opting in first (there was big hoopla about that from the publisher's end): http://counternotions.com/2011/02/16/stores/

And just today this came in:

"As part of a more stringent ruleset regarding customer privacy, Apple has reportedly started rejecting apps which access UDIDs in a practice that will become de rigueur for all review teams".

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#179

Post by batista »

tikhonj wrote: post #135
javert wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in Nonsense. It's still not possible to copyright the idea of a "love story involving two feuding families," or something. You can't copyright ideas .

Yes. But Romeo and Juliet apparently borrowed heavily from works from 1562 and 1582[1]. Since he wrote the play in 1591, both works would have been under today's copyright. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_juliet

"borrowed heavily" != copied verbatim.

How many hollywood movies feature extremely similar plots?

Re: Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

#180

Post by VMG »

pohl wrote: post #147
VMG wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is fascinating to me is the hypocrisy. Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished. You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content. Much…

It's interesting, because there are sources on the internet that catalogue a taxonomy for all manner of fallacious arguments (Wikipedia is one obvious example), but there doesn't seem to be a name for claiming that internet posts written by the people in set A are hypocritical because they presumably-contradict either 1) posts by people in set B happened to appear on the same website, or 2) some hand-waving character…

It may not be a rigorous proof that some individual are hypocritical, but I think it is an indication that it is likely that there are some individuals that are hypocritical.
Post reply on HN