From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 19 05:49:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA80106566B for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:49:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E818FC13 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id p6J5n6sP028960 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:49:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:49:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201107190549.p6J5n6sP028960@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:49:24 -0000 > From editor@d3photography.com 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: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > To: Robert Bonomi > > > On Jul 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > > >> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:01:53 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com > >> Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc ) > >> > >> Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 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. STRAWMAN ALERT!! BOGON ALERT!! "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 assistince in FINDING THE VIOLATIONS. > 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. >