Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:00:53 -0700
From:      perryh@pluto.rain.com
To:        bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
Message-ID:  <4e259c25.kSFRi65elAG97DRH%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
In-Reply-To: <201107190323.p6J3NSHM028311@mail.r-bonomi.com>
References:  <201107190323.p6J3NSHM028311@mail.r-bonomi.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> 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 <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> 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 :-)"

{{ Noting that ad-hominem attacks, e.g. name-calling, are typically
   employed by those who lack confidence in the merit of their case. }}

Actually, I read the _entire_ posting, including the subject line
which you may have missed.  The 'ACTUAL REQUEST' was for 'Tools to
find "unlegal" files' (quotes in original).  Not '... media files',
or '... files which _might_ infringe copyrights', but '... "unlegal"
files'.  As noted elsewhere in this thread, my point was that that
can't be automated -- at least, not to my knowledge.

> ... 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.

and thus it did not solve the OP's stated problem, unless we are to
presume that the subject line was not part of the problem statement.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4e259c25.kSFRi65elAG97DRH%perryh>