McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content - Polidicks

I cry myself to sleep at night thinking about how there's people out there stealing intellectual property from it's rightful creators.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40416875]If I'm reading this right you're saying that unless someone literally loses physical property or actual money no theft occurred? Under this definition how would you deal with patents as well as intellectual property?[/QUOTE] Copyright infringement, unlicensed fabrication or use of a patented good. We already have definitions for these things, stop trying to call them theft when they AREN'T.

Piracy like gun control seems to be one of those topics that sparks page long debates. And every time people use the same arguments. I don't get why someone would install this for himself. Pirated content is indeed easy to find. I just google'd an album name to find out more about it and already on page 1 there was a link to download it. But still I have no idea how one manages to pirate something accidentaly.

[QUOTE=Desuh;40417229]I don't get why someone would install this for himself.[/QUOTE] Well it often comes with a free trial period when you buy a prebuilt computer or a laptop. Many workplaces who buy in tons of computers or private people who are not good with computers will just install and activate anything that is given as part of the deal, assuming that if it comes along with the computer then it's something that makes the computer better.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40417207]Copyright infringement, unlicensed fabrication or use of a patented good. We already have definitions for these things, stop trying to call them theft when they AREN'T.[/QUOTE] my question wasnt directed at you so im not surprised you didnt answer it. What you did give me was specific terminology for he generic umbrella term "theft". Not sure why, if i wanted to know i could easily look it up/ wiki style :/

Sounds like patent trolling in favor of pirates, but if John McAfee isn't involved anymore I'm not so sure. Sounds like something he would do.

Topics that seem to spark big debates (most of the time) here on facepunch: -Piracy -Gun Control -Feminism But more on topic, I don't really use McAfee I have Norton so I presume this won't affect me but I don't want to call it too soon.

Waiting for the lawsuits caused by false positives, blocking people from their legitimate software.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40416875]If I'm reading this right you're saying that unless someone literally loses physical property or actual money no theft occurred? Under this definition how would you deal with patents as well as intellectual property?[/QUOTE] That's not the same thing, because it's easy to presume that the profit the thief makes would you be able to make as well. It sorta automatically evaluates the stolen thing - and that evaluation is usually what the lawsuits aim to take from the thief. If somebody starts selling fake iPhones for $50, it's safe to presume that apple would make at the very least the $50 if they sold them for this price, and the copying person will have to pay that and probably far more, if they get to court. Somebody being willing to watch a $50 movie for free doesn't mean the movie would make $50 if he couldn't watch it for free.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40417495]That's not the same thing, because it's easy to presume that the profit the thief makes would you be able to make as well. It sorta automatically evaluates the stolen thing - and that evaluation is usually what the lawsuits aim to take from the thief. If somebody starts selling fake iPhones for $50, it's safe to presume that apple would make at the very least the $50 if they sold them for this price, and the copying person will have to pay that and probably far more, if they get to court. Somebody being willing to watch a $50 movie for free doesn't mean the movie would make $50 if he couldn't watch it for free.[/QUOTE] So the guy who buys a cheap knockoff phone- its just assumed if the knockoff wasnt available he would buy the "real" phone? But the guy who watches the movie for free- its not assured he would have otherwise have watched the movie? To me in both cases, its not certain the "legit product" license holder would have made a sale had the illegitimate product not been available. Im still not seeing how its relevant either. Or perhaps your talking about enrichment from the "illegitimate product"? Since in the second example no one actually made any money that no money could possibly be reimbursed to the "legitimate product" holder?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40416017]That's first assuming it's for an ISP. But how would it be any different in function from something like this? [img]http://www.rfid-library.com/images/gate02.JPG[/img] On an unrelated note, while I was looking for that image [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3877425/temp/antitheft.png]this was my search result[/url][/QUOTE] Less like that and more like this [img]http://i.imgur.com/im14ak4.jpg[/img] Because, you know, shop anti-theft gates don't look at everything you have and only scan for offending items whereas this anti-piracy tech would [i]have[/i] to look at everything you are searching and every website you go to in order to work properly.

Hmmm I'll keep my free AVG please.

I can actually see this being used by companies or schools on their computers, to make sure workers/random people won't download pirated things through their networks. I remember how a friend of mine pirated a movie on a school PC, next time we had that class the teacher is like "Hey I think this is for you" and hands him a printed out C&D email the school got :v:

[QUOTE=Death_God;40415717]does anyone even use mcafee anymore[/QUOTE] Boston College does. And they require it to gain access to their servers.

Can't believe theres been people in this thread defending this non sense. Regardless on what your stance on piracy is stuff like this is never a good idea. Internet should have as little restrictions as possible.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40418267]So the guy who buys a cheap knockoff phone- its just assumed if the knockoff wasnt available he would buy the "real" phone? But the guy who watches the movie for free- its not assured he would have otherwise have watched the movie? To me in both cases, its not certain the "legit product" license holder would have made a sale had the illegitimate product not been available. Im still not seeing how its relevant either. Or perhaps your talking about enrichment from the "illegitimate product"? Since in the second example no one actually made any money that no money could possibly be reimbursed to the "legitimate product" holder?[/QUOTE] Yeah. The enrichment from "illegitimate product" proves the harm done. If there's no enrichment, you have no grounds to base any figures about harm on.

i used mcafee but all it did was sit there and ask me to give it money

[QUOTE=Death_God;40415717]does anyone even use mcafee anymore[/QUOTE] it came with a free 3-day trial on my new laptop, in which it hogged CPU, warned me with a big obstructive popup about every action I do, and popped up reminders every hour to actually pay for it before time runs out or I'll lose all of these wonderful services [QUOTE=person11;40415831]Wouldn't intercepting every url entered into a browser slow down web browsing? Even if the process of checking a url on a blacklist would not take too long?[/QUOTE] it's like the programming equivalent of a team rocket mob protection scheme involving strategically placed snorlaxes on footpaths and roads

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40419462]To those who say it causes no lost profit; I ask this; why would a corporation spend millions of dollars in lawsuits against not only pirates, but against their ISP's as well?[/QUOTE] Because in the magical world of piracy apologists, the cost-benefit analytical ability of consultants hired by multi-billion dollar corporations pales in comparison to the expert knowledge of a bunch of teenagers with access to Google.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;40416436][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720[/url] I know this is for music, but I imagine similar results would be (and will be) found for other types of piracy. Your argument is not valid until you can provide evidence for it, that is, evidence that piracy causes loss in profits.[/QUOTE] Actually, there are some flaws with the study, which is mentioned in that article but not elaborated. And thank you for not using TorrentFreak as a source. [quote]1. [b]There is a major problem in how the data is employed to study sales displacement.[/b] Nielsen Netview data provides the number of 'clicks' or 'visits' to legal and illegal services which the JRC classified as containing music, across the five major EU markets. There is a fundamental gap in the data though - no music transaction is being measured or analysed, all conclusions are based on approximations and estimates of music activity. This severely impacts the results and is not a good proxy for legitimate music consumption. 2. [b]The study is confused over the overlap between the use of legal and illegal services.[/b] It is not news that some pirates are also legal buyers - this is consistently found in other studies. Recent data from Kantar Worldpanel in the UK based on diarised music purchases (actual spend, music-based measure - a more appropriate data source for this type of analysis) highlighted that while some file-sharers spend a lot on music (physical/digital), this is counterbalanced by many file-sharers that don't buy any music - as many as 44.8% of file-sharers in the UK buy no music at all. These and separate third party research results contradict the JRC's finding that illegal downloading stimulates digital sales - if a large proportion of illegal downloaders do not buy any music (and yet consume, in some cases, large amounts of it), it cannot be logical that illegal behaviour stimulates legal download sales and inflicts no harm. 3. The JRC paper's suggestion that copyright infringement online is unlikely to inflict harm on digital revenues is [b]undermined by its use of a very narrow view of digital revenues[/b], namely only digital downloads. This is a crucial omission, as downloads are only one source of revenues in today's digital music market. Subscription services and ad-supported streams already account for more than 30% of digital revenues in Europe (IFPI). Making an authoritative assessment of the impact of online piracy on legal digital consumption cannot be done if it does not go beyond the impacts on legal downloading. It is a more complex task, and one the JRC did not undertake, and this significantly weakens the study.[/quote] [url=http://ifpi.org/content/section_news/20130320.html]Source[/url] [url=http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/IFPI-response-JRC-study_March2013.pdf]Full source[/url]

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40416237]I wasn't attacking you personally, I was speaking to anyone who pirates software and hides behind the idea that they're fighting for freedom and aren't a thief. Just accept it and move on. Not sure what's so hard about that. And what exactly are you talking about? If people aren't going to buy software and are instead going to pirate it, of course there is going to be a loss of wealth: All the sales you didn't get because of the people who decided to get the game for free instead of buying it. And don't tell me that "people who pirate wouldn't have bought it anyway" crap. Every person I know who has ever pirated ever has expressed interest in purchasing the software/game they pirated, but resorted to pirating it because they wanted to save money for something else. If, in a perfect world, there was no way to pirate, a person would have two options: Not buy, or buy. If someone wanted to play a game, they would buy it when they had the disposable income to do so. All you're doing is trying to rationalize it. It's not like I think less of people who do pirate or something. I think less of people who pirate and pretend they're doing nothing wrong, though. This is a good post:[/QUOTE] The difference between piracy and the examples given in the quote is that in those examples someone is actually losing something, whereas piracy only results in not gaining something. Actually not even that, piracy only results in [I]potentially[/I] not gaining something, because for all you know that person may or may not have given you their money to begin with. If you were to pirate something, it wouldn't be the same as going into a game store, grabbing a copy off of the shelves, and running out the door without paying. In that case, the store would actually be losing a copy of the game that could have been sold to a paying customer. It's not the same thing as the example you provided either, because if I get a haircut at a barbershop and walk out without paying, the barber lost time that could have been spent servicing a paying customer. When you pirate something, you're simply taking one of an infinite supply of copies. No one is actually losing anything because the creator still has an infinite supply of copies with which to provide their paying customers, they only aren't receiving the money that you may or may not have possibly given to them if it hadn't been available for free. Now, that doesn't mean that piracy is acceptable, or that we should be endorsing it, but it does mean that it's genuinely incorrect to call it theft. Copyright infringement and theft are two entirely different offenses that are handled and punished in entirely different ways, as they should be, because they aren't the same thing.

1- many people search out illegal content because they care enough to be interested, but don't care enough to buy, or plain out can't afford it. 2- yeah some people do try before you buy with a lot of things. Radio and MTV have essentially been the medium for that before faster, more illegal methods came about to just obtain stuff. Some people just get it to get it, but again, maybe they didn't care enough to have bought it otherwise. Services like itunes, spotify, soundcloud, etc all provide legal outlets to do this again, and to an extent they work pretty well at giving people an 'easy' way to buy, or simply subscribe to a service and listen to everything. a huge example of this [i]working[/i] is Adobe. Do you know [i]why[/i] their products, mostly photoshop, are all considered the industry standards? Because they don't care about piracy on small grounds. Sure, if a business making profits on an illicity licence, they'll jump on it, but they do not care about people obtaining their products for personal use, because [i]that means that these people are training themselves to use their product[/i]. We all know photoshop because our schools have it, and because schools have it a lot of students "have" it to keep doing their work, and when they graduate, they have a huge "proficient in photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, fireworks, lightroom, etc" that tells companies "this guy knows what he's doing", and he goes on to give a company a reason to utilize him, his expertise, and dump money into the products and future upgrades to keep going. and even to the lesser extents, because everyone even remotely knows how to use photoshop, even if it's old people who just use it to cut and paste things around, they still default to using that program later if they have a better reason. they suggest it to friends when they have problems, and [i]somebody[/i] who wouldn't have gone to it will later buy PS:Elements or something because they were told it works. also there's been countless times that industry professionals come out and say that they don't see profit losses. WHY do they go out of their way and sue people? [i]because free money[/i], amazing.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40419546]Because in the magical world of piracy apologists, the cost-benefit analytical ability of consultants hired by multi-billion dollar corporations pales in comparison to the expert knowledge of a bunch of teenagers with access to Google.[/QUOTE] Don't forget anecdotal arguments such ad "I know plenty of people who..." or "really shitty biased studies show...." or "They wouldn't have bought it in the first place!"

Piracy is counterfeiting not theft.

[QUOTE=Ylsid;40419680]Piracy is counterfeiting not theft.[/QUOTE] It's theft because its stealing potential sales

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40419462]Others say: oh its try before you buy . It's hard to come up with an argument against this, because it assumes that you are going to buy the game after playing it and enjoying it[/QUOTE] I don't get this. I see a lot of people saying they'll try before they buy, but I never see anyone follow through, except in cases where a game's multiplayer is worthwhile, and even then there are things like alterIWnet for games like Modern Warfare 2, which to be fair even I used after I got VAC'd. Games like Dishonored, or BioShock Infinite, how many people pirate and go "oh I'm just trying it" will actually end up buying it? The game is a singleplayer experience, what incentive do you have to buy it? If you want to support the developer then buy it when you have the money. I know a lot of people hate the theft comparison, but you don't get to test drive a car for 10 years and then decide to buy it.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;40419691]It's theft because its stealing potential sales[/QUOTE] "Stealing potential sales" what does that even mean? Are used sales theft because you're "stealing" the potential profit that could have been made from a new purchase?

[QUOTE=Ylsid;40419680]Piracy is counterfeiting not theft.[/QUOTE] Counterfeiting is making fake copies and selling them. Its not the genuine article and you're duping people into paying for an original.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40419804]Yes but how many people would actually BUY photoshop if it wasn't 600$ a license? what if it cost 40$ for a personal license, then could you justify piracy? Granted photoshop is a utility, not a game, so the entertainment argument doesnt exist. [/QUOTE] And you know what? When Adobe had a fluke in their student sales, I bought Design Premium for $60. Legally owned and the purchase was honored. Simply because it beats the $200 student pricetag.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;40415724]I believe the language implies it will be implemented by the ISP, not the end user.[/QUOTE] Seems more similar to siteAdvisor systems - which are generally end user based. Either for people who fear the large waters of the internet, or parents who want to steer their kids away from certain stuff. [QUOTE=Ylsid;40419680]Piracy is counterfeiting not theft.[/QUOTE] Piracy is IP theft (as opposed to product teft often). Admittedly in some places piracy and counterfeinting do overlap, when someone tries to pass off bootlegged dvds as the real thing for instance.