|
Ahh, thought control. When they can control what you say, they control what you think.
One thing you should not think is that such things only happen in China. The nonsense in advertising, our beloved buzzwords or political correctness work very much the same way.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
These are words of wisdom CDP1802. 
Not Confucius says but: CDP1802 says....
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
Methinks a tin-pot politician or three must have names that lend themselves to puns, so that makes such legislation absolutely essential.
I'll ask the missus to have a snoop.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I heartily suggest that all CPers should consider Hao this might affect Yu. Hu knows Wen the NSA will give it a try?!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure: Some of the puns on here ought to be illegal!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Once I commented on an article, stating that the subject and the code are violating the ToS of YouTube (5.1-C), and told that author should put his abilities to better use...
I got downvotes than and today too and the article gained over 100 5 votes...
And I think to myself, are you using online services against its ToS if owner do not enforce it?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
If you think an article (or any other post) here is violating any laws or ToS, then you should report it in either the Article forum or Bugs'n'Sugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: If you think an article (or any other post) here is violating any laws or ToS
You meant just CodeProject's ToS, or ToS of random internet service? If it is latter, well then, I guess a good chunk of articles should be wiped out from this site.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean any. If CodeProject publishes an article that is in breach of some law or agreement then it, as well as the author, can be held liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A ToS agreement is a private agreement, so the legal system will only care about it if one party wishes to complain that another party hasn't upheld the agreement.
A third party (in this case CP) has no right to get involved unless legally petitioned to do so by one of the parties to the agreement, so it stands as a case of it being none of our business.
I'm curious what kind of complaint could be made by youtube, though. The copyright issues involved in that site are horrendously convoluted.
E.g. it might well be the case that uploaders to youtube could raise complaints if their personal videos are downloaded following advice taken from a CP article, but against whom would/could/should they direct their complaints/petitions?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I'm curious what kind of complaint could be made by youtube
The only issue of any relevance is whether they would bring a civil case against codeProject.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The only issue of any relevance is whether they would bring a civil case against codeProject.
For what? CP doesn't copy youtube's page scripts, and youtube doesn't hold copyright on anything else, e.g. the video content on their pages.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: For what?
For whatever they want, in this litigious age.
|
|
|
|
|
ToSs are written to be ignored. They're a convenient source of bullshit excuses if they ever want to ban someone though.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: gained over 100 5 votes
Everyone likes a rebel. 
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: the subject and the code are violating the ToS of YouTube (5.1-C)
I don't see how code or article violate ToS. Code is passive thing it does not violate anything. Person running the code violates it. I didn't see any part of ToS that says you're not allowed to spread information how to circumvent their protection. And even if it does, I doubt that it would be accepted by the court.
If you think otherwise, I'll assume you don't read/watch/listen to any kind of news...
Also you said it is illegal, which is not true. Even if it breaks ToS (ToS violation != illegal). Illegal usually means against criminal law, which is far bigger thing.
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: told that author should put his abilities to better use
And you wonder why you get downvoted?
|
|
|
|
|
Mladen Janković wrote: Also you said it is illegal, which is not true.
I guess that depends where you are, and how litigious the people you are circumventing are feeling: In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)[^] was passed in the United States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available technologies whose primary purpose and function are to circumvent content protection technologies - and large chunks of this were adopted in the EU as well.
This has been applied to cryptography research, since that could impact DRM! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
sounds like hacking, cybercrime. what next, article for sniffing credit card #s get 100 5votes? 
|
|
|
|
|
What' next? See how you like it when they write a script to login all day to give you participant points?
|
|
|
|
|
HPPY Thanksgiving by the way, sleepy from eating tortured mutated genetically engineered franken-turkey?
|
|
|
|
|
There is no protection. Youtube downloaders literally just download a file that's just sitting there, asking to be downloaded.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. 
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
So if the state had a list of drivers license numbers JUST SITTING THERE WITH NO PROTECTION? IS IT ASKING TO BE DOWNLOADED?? WHAT KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT??????????????????????
|
|
|
|
|
It means it not a hack. You may still not have authorization, but even that is hard to defend in this case - the youtube player also downloads the file (a little differently, but still, it definitely has to receive that data before it can display it and that's the definition of downloading), so you're not doing even anything you otherwise wouldn't have - except that you're keeping a "slightly more solid" copy.
Nareesh1 wrote: So if the state had a list of drivers license numbers JUST SITTING THERE WITH NO PROTECTION? IS IT ASKING TO BE DOWNLOADED??
Yes it is, and it will be done, and it wouldn't be a hack. That doesn't mean it will be legal.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
