Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:49:06 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Robert Bonomi <>
Subject:   Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> From  Tue Jul 19 00:05:30 2011
> Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
> From: Ryan Coleman <>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:05:27 -0500
> Cc:
> To: Robert Bonomi <>
> On Jul 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:01:53 -0700 From: 
> >> Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
> >>
> >> Robert Bonomi <> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip specific suggestions re awk(1), file(1), find(1), grep(1), etc.>
> >>
> >> All well and good for locating files of a certain format and/or with 
> >> particular content, but it doesn't address the question of whether a 
> >> specific copy is "legal", i.e. did the user who put it there have the 
> >> legal right to put it there?
> >
> > {{ Noting that the troll contributed nothing constructive to the OP's
> >   problem, _or_ to dealing with the pseudo-issue he raises. }}
> >
> > Obviously the ankle-biter was incapable of reading the ACTUAL REQUEST 
> > the OP made:
> >
> >  "Anyone knows an utility that I could pipe to the "find" command
> >   in order to detect video, music, games ... etc  files ?
> >
> >   I need a tool that could "inspect" inside files because many users 
> >   rename those filename to "inoffensive" ones :-)"
> >
> > NOTE WELL that the OP was _smart_enough_ -- unlike the prior poster -- 
> > to ask about something that _can_ be done mechanically.
> >
> > Furthermore, it was _explicit_ in the actual suggestion that it only 
> > produced a list possible 'suspects' -- It did _not_ provide any 
> > indication of status -- 'legal', or otherwise.
> Go to hell.

I recommend you take your own advice -- then you might have an opportunity
to learn "what the hell" you're talking about.

>             He wants to rename the files that are illegal to ones that 
> aren't. 

Have you got *anything* to support that =libelous= accusation?

While you're at it, I dare you to attempt to explain how 'renaming' a 
file can _possibly_ make it 'legal' if it were not so before the renaming..

Next, _if_ he was doing that, can you explain _why_ he needed to look 'inside'
the file for content type?  

He is specifically attempting to find content that has *ALREADY* been 
'concealed' in 'innocuous' file names.

>        That's circumventing copyright law and would land him or her in 
> jail. 

THAT statement is 'libel per se', and, as such, actionable defamation.

>       This topic, based solely on ethics, should not be discussed as any 
> suggestions that this is LEGAL to do supports copyright violations.



"This topic" -- meaning *YOUR* "false to fact" assumption about the OP
'renaming' copyright-infringing files to avoid detection -- exists *ONLY* 
in your depraved imagination.

Since there is =nothing= in this discussion, up to this point, that touchs
on the point _at_all_, It is *pure*fiction* to postulate that there have
been any suggestions that 'this is legal'.

In point of actual FACT, the OP, a _system_administrator_, is attempting
to ferret out possible COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS -- of the type you so vehemently
oppose -- BY HIS USERS.

Yet, for some reason, you are opposed to those who are offering said admin

> I would record those names and DELETE them but only if the TOS supports 
> it.

You *do* realize that doing _that_ would make *you* potentially liable for 
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for 'intentionally destroying evidence' of a crime,
don't you?

>     If it does not, then you get the DCMA notice

You *REALLY*are an ignoramus, aren't you?

Did you notice _where_ the OP was posting from?

Do you have any idea of the geographic limits of the DMCA?

Did you notice that the OP, a system administrator, has _already_ received
a legal notice about 'infringing' files on his system?

>                                                  and handle it 
> accordingly from the copyright holder.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>