Re: [dvd-discuss] DMCA, 'creative web surfing', and linking.

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

btw...

one of my "secret" urls is:
"http://atari-source.com/~nsilva/"
and then add "photos/" onto the end.

I do this because I don't want everyone on the internet looking at
personal photos, yet I want to be able to give out the URL to my friends
and whomever I like without having to set up some account for them to log
into.  I certainly wouldn't try to sue anyone over leaking or viewing it
(obviously, or I wouldn't publish it here).

  -- noah silva 


On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Scott A Crosby wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> 
> > I've got problems with the whole notion that robots are bad things that
> > sites should be able to stop others from using. It really comes down to a
> > DoS aspect. Unlike a person, a robot can consume bandwidth and accesses
> > faster than a human can and that affects the quality and access to a
> > website. If a website wants to 'detect" a robot and terminate the
> 
> I was careful with my robot, usually each instance only sent 5-15 queries
> a minute. (I noted that when loading some of these pages manually with my
> browser, it was answering 20 queries in a half-second to download the page
> and the inline images.)
> 
> > connection (and even refuse other connections from that IP address for a
> > short period) that's their right but they also run the risk of making
> > their customer's very angry. But why should the law even get involved?
> 
> DMCA threats seems to be used when someone wants to intimidate someone
> else to stop doing something. In that the party making the threats is
> unhappy and just using it as a tool.
> 
> Ergo, intimidate people who realize that '02' comes after '01'. And,
> 'circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to
> a work'?
> 
> > There are solutions that don't involve lengthy lawsuits or jail time for
> > offenders. But also they can't tell if I'm using a robot or just quickly
> > opening windows or saving links to disk. Is the latter allowed but the
> > former isn't. How can they tell? They can't really even make a case by a
> > proponderance of the evidence . Ergo, that provides a legal defense for
> > any anti-circumvention laws or procedures.
> 
> I brought up the robot as a point that I was purposely configuring it to
> not trigger the web server's access-restriction on robots. Thus,
> 'circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to
> a work'?
> 
> 
> 
> And, a URL could be thought of as being a sort of access-control
> technology, which was my point, thus leaking it as Noah illustrated is
> 'circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to
> a work'?
> 
> I just mentioned these to stimulate discussion.
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
>