I want to know if people think that the appeal to the government to create a vicious file-sharing virus that crashes hard drives will be ignored or observed?
Printable View
I want to know if people think that the appeal to the government to create a vicious file-sharing virus that crashes hard drives will be ignored or observed?
Definately needs observation. I think such proposals are dangerous. I agree that some regulations must be considered in the field of file-sharing, but to destroy data on people's computers... I think that is a much worse crime than to download, let's say a CD album.
the virus would have to only target users in certain countries.Quote:
Originally posted by Darkshade@19 June 2003 - 10:01
I want to know if people think that the appeal to the government to create a vicious file-sharing virus that crashes hard drives will be ignored or observed?
for example, it couldn't legally affect a disc in the uk if it was only authorised in the us.
also, it'll never happen because it's illegal to destroy property
and its legal to steal? ;-)
no, i didn't say thatQuote:
Originally posted by useD@19 June 2003 - 10:30
and its legal to steal? ;-)
I posted this in another section and it got moved here. So I didn't know this topic was discussed so much. Sorry for the repetition. :unsure:
There already exists MANY p2p viruses that trash people's data.
Whether RIAA/MPAA/BSA made any of them is open for debate, but highly unlikely.
HOWEVER, they may have 'encouraged' anti-virus companies not to work too hard getting out an early 'cure' for them until they better study their effects...
This could be why McAfee didn't have a virus remover/deleter for the Kazaa virus that creates up to 82 different filenames for itself (BearShare 5.1.1.exe and Ad Aware 6.5.exe are 2 I've seen of it) until some 3-4 months after it'd spread across the network.
This in the days when OTHER antivirus companies have made fixes for viruses that have only been known for HOURS!
I actually came in here to see if anyone was talking about this story after I read it on the BBC web site.
I don't think it will happen, because it flies in the face of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" ideal that is so central to the constitution of the UK and US.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that property cannot be destroyed, as there is a long history of pirates having all their equipment confiscated (which is much the same thing).
What is astounding about all of this, however, is the fact that AOL seem to think that the best way to combat music piracy is to continue to push their own music download product "MusicNet". Now, I don't know if the BBC have got it wrong, but they quote the costs of membership to MusicNet as:
"The basic AOL $3.95 deal will give users 20 streamed songs and 20 downloads per month.
Fans can sign up for more access for up to $17.95 (£11.40) per month, which buys unlimited streams and downloads, and the ability to burn - or copy - 10 songs to blank CDs per month."
So you can burn 10 songs onto a CD per month for £11.40??!!!!!
Now THAT is piracy.
6
do you enjoy using copy/paste ?
I agree it is a bit much but at least it is 20 songs you like versus 2 or 3 per disc you buy at the store :)Quote:
Originally posted by number6@19 June 2003 - 14:39
So you can burn 10 songs onto a CD per month for £11.40??!!!!!
Now THAT is piracy.
6
For those 10 songs, I would have to buy 4 or 5 discs on average. Costing around $60-$75 @ $15 per disc. :blink:
Yes Jonne,
especially when there are 3 identical threads and I want to make a point.
OK Tracydani, I take your point, but supposing you wanted a whole album by one artist? If you're lucky, there'll only be 10 tracks on it, so it will cost £11:40 for the download, 25p for the disc and you won't get a case or any sleeve notes.
You can buy the original at CDWOW for £8:99, and you can't tell me they are non-profit making?!!
How can AOL justify £11:40 a month?!!
They've looked at the P2P problem and thought:
"Hey, why don't we set up a good download service and kill P2P dead?!!"
.......and then someone on the board at AOL has thought:
"Hey, a download service, COOOOOLLLLL!!!!! Why not make our profit margins EVEN BETTER than they are on CD's?!!"
P2P is not killing music any more than home taping did, it's greedy record companies and their media affiliates.
6
Until they start putting in hardware modifications to allow a virus to actually physically destroy a hard drive then we have nothing to worry about. Besides, the likelihood of such a virus becoming abused or mistakenly destroying a hard drive will keep this from being realized.
Switeck,Quote:
HOWEVER, they may have 'encouraged' anti-virus companies not to work too hard getting out an early 'cure' for them until they better study their effects...
I am certain that there is no way that a company could convince a security company to hold of on preventing virus spread. It is such neglect of a virus that would put them out of business.
@number6
I agree it should be less expensive. But for myself, if I found a cd that had 10 songs I like I would just buy it at the store.
Cd's are expensive but my biggest problem with the price is the fact that I usually only like a few songs. It is the combination of the high price and the lack of good music that gets me, not just the price.
Unless it is good classic rock from say the 60's to the late 70's I usually only like a song or 2.
I really don't care about the companies making a lot of money. That is what they are there for. But they are also supposed to be there to ensure we get a product worth paying for, and in my opinion that isn't happening.
And I definately agree p2p is not hurting anyone. I have heard and seen far more then I would ever have without it and as a result I am able to buy what I want. But I spend far more then I would have without it cause as an adult I refuse to pay full price for a product with only 20% quality.
Then how come isn't McAfee out of business?Quote:
Originally posted by BritishICE@20 June 2003 - 13:50
Switeck,Quote:
HOWEVER, they may have 'encouraged' anti-virus companies not to work too hard getting out an early 'cure' for them until they better study their effects...
I am certain that there is no way that a company could convince a security company to hold of on preventing virus spread. It is such neglect of a virus that would put them out of business.
And how do you explain such a LONG lag time between initial infections first appearing on Kazaa and McAfee FINALLY coming up with antivirus software uploads to deal with this/these viruses?
Then how come isn't McAfee out of business?Quote:
Originally posted by Switeck+20 June 2003 - 15:53--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Switeck @ 20 June 2003 - 15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BritishICE@20 June 2003 - 13:50
Switeck,Quote:
HOWEVER, they may have 'encouraged' anti-virus companies not to work too hard getting out an early 'cure' for them until they better study their effects...
I am certain that there is no way that a company could convince a security company to hold of on preventing virus spread. It is such neglect of a virus that would put them out of business.
And how do you explain such a LONG lag time between initial infections first appearing on Kazaa and McAfee FINALLY coming up with antivirus software uploads to deal with this/these viruses? [/b][/quote]
When it comes to people that use AntiVirus products, a sad fact is that many of them are ignorant and neglect updating as well as spending time picking one. People still buy McAfee products - that's why they are still in business. The long lag time can be explained by McAfee's incompetence. They don't have as much funding for curing new viruses. I notice that Symantec gets cures for Kazaa viruses quite quickly.
In terms of this virus bomb thing, it aint gonna legally happen. I live in Canada, and guess what any law that the states passes, aint gonna be legal here. That goes across the board in all countries. The united states government/or record companies publicly start spreading this, not gonna fly in the other countries of the world. Oaying attention to this stupid congressman, would be like paying attention to that idiot who said stron thurman should of won.