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: