"Razorback 2 appears to be dead"
Discussion
www.theinquirer.net/?article=29834
I wondered why I couldn't get my fix of paedophilia, bomb and terrorism aids.
R.I.P. R2
"Razorback2 was not just an enormous index for Internet users engaged in illegal file swapping, it was a menace to society," said Executive Vice President and Worldwide Anti-Piracy Director John G. Malcolm.
Menace to society? I bet if I asked the first 50 people I met ni the street that no-one would have heard og RazorBack2.
I'd like to see what they are charging them with.
Menace to society? I bet if I asked the first 50 people I met ni the street that no-one would have heard og RazorBack2.
I'd like to see what they are charging them with.
timsta said:
"Razorback2 was not just an enormous index for Internet users engaged in illegal file swapping, it was a menace to society," said Executive Vice President and Worldwide Anti-Piracy Director John G. Malcolm.
Menace to society? I bet if I asked the first 50 people I met ni the street that no-one would have heard og RazorBack2.
I'd like to see what they are charging them with.
I've certainly not heard of them.
Can anyone send me anything to ensure that I haven't missed out on anything interesting
Basically, Razorback is a server which hosts where files are located. It's used for peer to peer networking/file sharing.
The MPAA has had them shut down, BUT, the servers don't actually host any illegal content, they just hold an index of what files are stored on whose machine. And they store that in RAM, so as soon as the authorities deceided to switch them off and take them away they loose all the info.
So the servers aren't actually doing anything illegal, it's like me saying that Bob has a video of "Donnie Darko" and you asking Bob if you can have a copy. Yourself and Bob are breaking the law, not me.
This will be an interesting one.
>> Edited by timsta on Thursday 23 February 11:39
The MPAA has had them shut down, BUT, the servers don't actually host any illegal content, they just hold an index of what files are stored on whose machine. And they store that in RAM, so as soon as the authorities deceided to switch them off and take them away they loose all the info.
So the servers aren't actually doing anything illegal, it's like me saying that Bob has a video of "Donnie Darko" and you asking Bob if you can have a copy. Yourself and Bob are breaking the law, not me.
This will be an interesting one.
>> Edited by timsta on Thursday 23 February 11:39
timsta said:
Basically, Razorback is a server which hosts where files are located. It's used for peer to peer networking/file sharing.
The MPAA has had them shut down, BUT, the servers don't actually host any illegal content, they just hold an index of what files are stored on whose machine. And they store that in RAM, so as soon as the authorities deceided to switch them off and take them away they loose all the info.
So the servers aren't actually doing anything illegal, it's like me saying that Bob has a video of "Donnie Darko" and you asking Bob if you can have a copy. Yourself and Bob are breaking the law, not me.
Intersting idea, but unfortunately there is already an offence of conspiracy to cover it.
zumbruk said:
Intersting idea, but unfortunately there is already an offence of conspiracy to cover it.
Yes, but conspiracy of what? I often conspire when I'm planning a surprise party. Conspiracy in itself is not a crime.
Their servers do exactly what Google does. They index files, no more, no less.
If I were to search for copywritten a file on Google and download it then myself and the host are to blame, not google.
>> Edited by timsta on Thursday 23 February 11:52
timsta said:
If I were to search for copywritten a file on Google and download it then myself and the host are to blame, not google.
Google have been taken to court for that very reason as well - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology
FourWheelDrift said:
If I were to search for copywritten a file on Google and download it then myself and the host are to blame, not google.
Google have been taken to court for that very reason as well - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology
That was for hosting thumbnails of the images. Google images is handy, but technically illegal. >> Edited by timsta on Thursday 23 February 12:08
FourWheelDrift said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology
I can't see why that case should stick, I thought web pages could have a header which prevented such search engines from indexing/caching them?
They can use a robots.txt to stop being indexed. They don't mind being indexed, but Google coppied thier images, shrunk them and in essence republished them.
Although I guess that Google is worse than RazorBack, as it stores copies of the pages, whereas Razorback just stores the filename and a "signature" of the file, not the file itself.
Although I guess that Google is worse than RazorBack, as it stores copies of the pages, whereas Razorback just stores the filename and a "signature" of the file, not the file itself.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff