[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A little googling found someone who has thought that flawed (but I think still useful) idea:

Why “Takedown” Should Become “Take Down and Stay Down”

How amazing, it appears this individual has nearly as much of a bias as I do!
I'm afraid I don't listen to junk science, whether one person says it or two people say it. I somehow doubt Mr. Carlisle has ever attempted to put his grand scheme in motion...

And he is invoking ContentID. I am pretty sure ContentID is a highly sophisticated semantic filter that cost tens of millions of dollars to invent, let alone deploy, and which is capable of discovering portions of infringing content within an otherwise unrelated work... not a simple database of file hashes, which would be an embarrassing cop-out for an organization of Google's talent and resources.

And as the article so astutely points out, Dropbox will freeze sharing for *that* file, not further uploads of content that infringes the IP it is linked to. This would be because Dropbox allows one to share files (and when identifying a particular file uploaded by a particular user, a hash is not a terrible way to do so).

I do remember a poster here saying, maybe a year ago, that most unauthorized book downloading isn't via torrents. No one contradicted him or her. I think I know what he or she was getting at but wouldn't want to go into specifics.

Did s/he indeed. That may be so.
And it is completely irrelevant, since my point seems to have slid directly over your head.

Allow me to reiterate my point, then:
What makes you think ebook readers are any less likely than movie watchers to know what a torrent is?


Also, I still want to know what the point of your original statement was, because I can't see why it matters whether or not most ebook pirates don't know what a torrent is.

By whom?

Where did Mussolini stand on intellectual property rights? Do you have a cite where Mussolini said something that anticipated the Authors Guild position on book piracy?

Or are you just trying to make my position look bad

Or are you just trying to bring a ridiculous comparison?

I suggest you reread murg's post in light of the possibility that he was referring to your post, rather than unrelated things you may have said previously.
Hint: your post (and certainly the bit that murg quoted) was discussing the relative effectiveness of law enforcement in general vs. an ideal.

And murg stated that 100% enforcement implies fascism complete with he attendant likeliness of abuse. I am certainly inclined to agree that an authoritarian government is far more suited than a government with checks and balances, for the purpose of ensuring 100% realization of law enforcement. That is one of the trade-offs we pay, no authoritarian gov't in return for the possibility that the jackbooted hordes who aren't there won't be able to crack down on every last little smidgen of crime.

Feel free to agree or disagree, so long as you stop trying to pretend that anyone suggested that Mussolini has anything to do with intellectual property rights.