You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/22 18:11:22 UTC
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
gpirate is a search engine and as such, has no clue what's described by a
.torrent file beyond what the basic information sections of the .torrent
file tell them. At no time does any copyrighted content actually reside on
gpirate's servers, nor does it pass through gpirate's network. If you
consider a .torrent file a "map," that map tells you the names of places
(which may or may not be accurate), and how to get there. Also, note that
all these torrents are available on google too. Should we ban google?
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 2:16 PM, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
>> gipirate = function (string) -> ... -> pirated material
>> google = function (string) -> ... -> anything
>>
>
> Did you actually try it? function("Lost+S05E01") return the same
> links in
> both case, links to other bittorrent search engine. Replace that
> string with
> "ubuntu" and you'll get legal results in both cases.
I think the point is clearly made if you search for CouchDB on both
sites.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
When I hear somebody sigh, 'Life is hard,' I am always tempted to ask,
'Compared to what?'
-- Sydney Harris
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> gipirate = function (string) -> ... -> pirated material
> google = function (string) -> ... -> anything
>
Did you actually try it? function("Lost+S05E01") return the same links in
both case, links to other bittorrent search engine. Replace that string with
"ubuntu" and you'll get legal results in both cases.
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 1:58 PM, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
>> I think it's the difference between killing your wife and getting
>> your
>> mistress to hire a hitman to kill them on your behalf.
>>
>
> You're making an analogy with a google search and a bittorrent
> search engine
> search right?
No, I'm arguing that relying on a chain of intermediaries doesn't
mitigate the intention. Google's intention is to serve up search
results regardless of context or content. Gipirate's intention is to
connect you to illegal material, presuming you allow my assertion
about their name showing their intention.
Let's say that Giporn linked you to pages that linked you to pages
that linked you to porn. Does the fact that they distance themselves
in a strictly mechanistic manner alter the fact that their intention
is to link you to porn?
gipirate must be making *some* decision about where to send you based
on you eventually getting to pirated material.
gipirate = function (string) -> ... -> pirated material
google = function (string) -> ... -> anything
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.
-- Albert Schweitzer
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think it's the difference between killing your wife and getting your
> mistress to hire a hitman to kill them on your behalf.
>
You're making an analogy with a google search and a bittorrent search engine
search right?
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 1:48 PM, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> I said I'd leave it at that but anyway... this is a link to an html
> page,
> please give me any link to an actual copyright work that you might
> find on
> that page. Thanks.
But that's a somewhat legalistic argument, isn't it? The intention is
clear, and the mechanism is just that, a mechanism.
I think it's the difference between killing your wife and getting your
mistress to hire a hitman to kill them on your behalf.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of
reason as to administer medication to the dead.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://gpirate.com/s?src=featured&q=Lost%20S05E01%20%0D
>>
>> What is this if not directing me to copyright infringement?
>>
>
> I said I'd leave it at that but anyway... this is a link to an html page,
> please give me any link to an actual copyright work that you might find on
> that page. Thanks.
>
Also, the same query on google http://www.google.com/search?q=Lost+S05E01
Then again, all this is OT =P
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://gpirate.com/s?src=featured&q=Lost%20S05E01%20%0D
>
> What is this if not directing me to copyright infringement?
>
I said I'd leave it at that but anyway... this is a link to an html page,
please give me any link to an actual copyright work that you might find on
that page. Thanks.
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:53:41PM -0500, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> Err no, those are links that link to other bittorrent search engine, try a
> search. Again, just like a google search. Anyway, this thread is totally OT
> so let's leave it at that.
I chose a random featured link from the front page:
http://gpirate.com/s?src=featured&q=Lost%20S05E01%20%0D
What is this if not directing me to copyright infringement?
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> GPirate frames itself as a website for copyright infringement. It
> conceptually,
> and literally, invites you to infringe copyright. Several of the links on
> the
> home page are direct links to copyright infringing trackers.
Err no, those are links that link to other bittorrent search engine, try a
search. Again, just like a google search. Anyway, this thread is totally OT
so let's leave it at that.
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 08:37:15PM -0500, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website and
> > purpose
> > differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded about
> > opportunities for copyright infringement.
> >
>
> Well, gipirate is a search engine and has a bot that searches the web for
> torrents, just like google with torrents and the rest of the web. You can
> use bittorrent search engine to download gnu/linux distributions, jamendo
> music and more copyleft work, I do it all the time. Sure, many people use it
> to get illegal stuff. But if you look at the google top keyword searches
> you'll see porn, p2p, torrents, gambling etc on that list. So many people
> use it to do illegal/nsfw search, should we ban google too?
I already answered this question. It's a matter of framing.
GPirate frames itself as a website for copyright infringement. It conceptually,
and literally, invites you to infringe copyright. Several of the links on the
home page are direct links to copyright infringing trackers. That you can also
search for non-copyright infringing torrents is beside the point.
On the other hand, Google does not frame itself as a copyright infringement
website. When I go to the front page of Google it doesn't have a list of the
most popular torrents of Hollywood movies for me to click on. That you can also
search for copyright infringing material is beside the point.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The issue with gipirate starts with the name. The name says 'theft'. If it
> was called gitorrents or gitorrensearch, then maybe your argument could be
> taken seriously. You wouldn't quibble over a site called giporn being about
> porn, even if you could conceivable find artistic nude stills on such a
> site.
>
You have a point, it does describe itself as "world's biggest torrent search
engine" though, which is not true by the way (I mean it's not the biggest
=).
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 1:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I like relativism, but I try to avoid the nihilistic or laissez-fair
> tendencies
> of naïve relativism.
I'm a moral absolutist. But I don't regard that many things as moral
questions worthy of judgement, at least not compared to the universe
of 'things'.
> In any case, what does Dickinson have to do with ethical objectivism?
That poem is about the importance of taking care in discussing
subjects that have incendiary potential.
> What are your thoughts on Kant?
I subscribe to the concept of the categorical imperative, although
it's a tough master. But then again my head is Nietzschean, my heart
is with Singer and my gut is Kantian.
> I wouldn't presume to think you weren't already well versed with the
> free
> software philosophy, but I think it's important to point out that
> free software
> is about software freedom, not price.
I understand the distinction, and I have some disagreements with
software freedom as expressed by the FSF, but in that comment I was
thinking of music piracy.
The concept of software freedom is abused by software pirates/
crackers, who don't want the freedom so much as the zero cost. They
don't learn from the software, or modify it. And redistributing
without changes IS about price. IMO the last sentence of the very
first paragraph of 'Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free
Software' is at best badly expressed, at worst, a deliberate mis-
statement.
But please let us agree to disagree about that ... I'm stating my
position, but I really don't want to argue about something that has
proved such a fruitless and destructive battleground.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant
and has forgotten the gift.
-- Albert Einstein
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:06:09PM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
> I was only pointing out that the argument about 'but you can find other
> stuff on gipirate' is trumped by the explicit intention manifested in the
> name. My response to gipirate was independent of whether it should appear
> on the couch page. There are many things that I'm passionately opposed
> to, such as gambling, misogynistic porn, religion, IP theft, patent abuse
> etc etc, ad infinitum it sometimes seems. The extent of my passion
> partially motivates my concern to eliminate the opportunity for such
> issues to arise in the context of the couch wiki. It's separation of
> concerns. I am however personally more Kantian than moral relativist.
> Furthermore, see my sig.
I like relativism, but I try to avoid the nihilistic or laissez-fair tendencies
of naïve relativism. In any case, what does Dickinson have to do with ethical
objectivism? What are your thoughts on Kant? Something for IRC perhaps. Heh heh.
> And whilst I disagree vehemently with the (especially geek) culture of
> 'everything for free', there is a need for an opposing force in the face of
> public apathy about the deeper underlying issue.
Everything for free? Eek!
I wouldn't presume to think you weren't already well versed with the free
software philosophy, but I think it's important to point out that free software
is about software freedom, not price.
Here are some interesting essays that cover that in more depth:
The Free Software Definition
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 12:31 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>>
>> The issue with gipirate starts with the name. The name says
>> 'theft'. If it
>> was called gitorrents or gitorrensearch, then maybe your argument
>> could be
>> taken seriously. You wouldn't quibble over a site called giporn
>> being about
>> porn, even if you could conceivable find artistic nude stills on
>> such a
>> site.
>
>
> Given your comments heretofore, I can't help but remind you
> s\theft\infringement ;)
I'm actually happy linking to such a site - the site itself is legal,
and as long as it's both accurately described, uses couch in some way
that matters, and the page has an endorsement disclaimer.
I was only pointing out that the argument about 'but you can find
other stuff on gipirate' is trumped by the explicit intention
manifested in the name. My response to gipirate was independent of
whether it should appear on the couch page. There are many things that
I'm passionately opposed to, such as gambling, misogynistic porn,
religion, IP theft, patent abuse etc etc, ad infinitum it sometimes
seems. The extent of my passion partially motivates my concern to
eliminate the opportunity for such issues to arise in the context of
the couch wiki. It's separation of concerns. I am however personally
more Kantian than moral relativist. Furthermore, see my sig.
I recognize that copyright and patents were initially an economic
tool, and that in the US in particular, the elevation of property to
the status of a moral good has swallowed the original intention of
copyright and patents and twisted it into something else. And whilst I
disagree vehemently with the (especially geek) culture of 'everything
for free', there is a need for an opposing force in the face of public
apathy about the deeper underlying issue.
One need only consider first-world governments pressuring third-world
governments to restrict the availability of life-saving
pharmaceuticals because of IP theory to realise that property, and the
'theft' thereof, is a philosophically nuanced concept with strongly
opposed humanist arguments (to which I subscribe).
Finally, I know this isn't the place for such discussion :)
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
A Man may make a Remark –
In itself – a quiet thing
That may furnish the Fuse unto a Spark
In dormant nature – lain –
Let us divide – with skill –
Let us discourse – with care –
Powder exists in Charcoal –
Before it exists in Fire –
-– Emily Dickinson 913 (1865)
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Dean Landolt <de...@deanlandolt.com>.
>
> The issue with gipirate starts with the name. The name says 'theft'. If it
> was called gitorrents or gitorrensearch, then maybe your argument could be
> taken seriously. You wouldn't quibble over a site called giporn being about
> porn, even if you could conceivable find artistic nude stills on such a
> site.
Given your comments heretofore, I can't help but remind you
s\theft\infringement ;)
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 12:07 PM, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website
>> and
>> purpose
>> differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded
>> about
>> opportunities for copyright infringement.
>>
>
> Well, gipirate is a search engine and has a bot that searches the
> web for
> torrents, just like google with torrents and the rest of the web.
> You can
> use bittorrent search engine to download gnu/linux distributions,
> jamendo
> music and more copyleft work, I do it all the time. Sure, many
> people use it
> to get illegal stuff. But if you look at the google top keyword
> searches
> you'll see porn, p2p, torrents, gambling etc on that list. So many
> people
> use it to do illegal/nsfw search, should we ban google too?
The issue with gipirate starts with the name. The name says 'theft'.
If it was called gitorrents or gitorrensearch, then maybe your
argument could be taken seriously. You wouldn't quibble over a site
called giporn being about porn, even if you could conceivable find
artistic nude stills on such a site.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Patrick Aljord <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website and
> purpose
> differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded about
> opportunities for copyright infringement.
>
Well, gipirate is a search engine and has a bot that searches the web for
torrents, just like google with torrents and the rest of the web. You can
use bittorrent search engine to download gnu/linux distributions, jamendo
music and more copyleft work, I do it all the time. Sure, many people use it
to get illegal stuff. But if you look at the google top keyword searches
you'll see porn, p2p, torrents, gambling etc on that list. So many people
use it to do illegal/nsfw search, should we ban google too?
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:30:58AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
> OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a
> brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn
> site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on
> that page.
This seams like a reasonable way forward.
How do we handle links without the required explanation? All of the current
links require modification from the original poster in order to be compliant
with this proposed policy.
> Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of
> the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read
> the site description.
Agreed.
> Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn
> sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw that
> CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about building a
> media server on CouchDB.
Someone on IRC mentioned Oracle has some porn sites listed as clients.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 10:16 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
> I think a link to a blog post or other document that explains how
> couchdb is used would be just as good (if not better) than an on-page
> explanation.
The benefit of requiring a description on the page is that it is
immediately obvious which links are valid, and which not. To allow an
indirect reference requires following the reference. Doesn't stop the
description including a link to more detailed information /
architecture blog etc.
> I do think it's polite if your page could potentially be
> "nsfw" to put a clear description of that fact on the listing.
Sure, which is the description, as opposed to the justification/how-is-
couch-used. I think it's also OK to make an accurate description be a
requirement, rather than simply an issue of 'politeness'.
I wonder what 'nsfw' means if you work in porn? Religious sites? :)
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity
-- William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349)
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Michael McDaniel <co...@autosys.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:30:58AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/2009, at 9:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be
>>> family
>>> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a
>>> set of
>>> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
>>> standards. As
>>> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
>>>
>>> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does
>>> the
>>> community think? Is this link okay or not?
>>
>> OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a
>> brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn
>> site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on
>> that page.
>>
>> I think that not only improves the utility of the page, but also means
>> you won't be clicking on any link at work and be surprised to find naked
>> people. Also, it would require more effort by people submitting a link -
>> if the explanation of how couch is used isn't detailed enough, then the
>> link isn't accepted.
>>
>> Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of
>> the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read
>> the site description.
>>
>> IMO this would allow us to strictly focus on the technical criteria of
>> that page, whilst still allowing people to avoid opening any link that
>> is unsuitable either for them or their environment.
>>
>> Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn
>> sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw that
>> CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about building a
>> media server on CouchDB.
>>
>> Antony Blakey
>> --------------------------
>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
>> Ph: 0438 840 787
>>
>> The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
>> intelligent are full of doubt.
>> -- Bertrand Russell
>>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I am in agreement with what Antony has written above, and I vote to
> eliminate judgement as well.
>
> If a description does not include a suitably detailed explanation
> of how CouchDB is being used, then it does not meet the required
> criteria for being on the page. Also, the site description must be
> descriptive and unambiguous.
>
I think a link to a blog post or other document that explains how
couchdb is used would be just as good (if not better) than an on-page
explanation. I do think it's polite if your page could potentially be
"nsfw" to put a clear description of that fact on the listing.
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Michael McDaniel <co...@autosys.us>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:30:58AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2009, at 9:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be
>> family
>> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a
>> set of
>> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
>> standards. As
>> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
>>
>> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does
>> the
>> community think? Is this link okay or not?
>
> OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a
> brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn
> site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on
> that page.
>
> I think that not only improves the utility of the page, but also means
> you won't be clicking on any link at work and be surprised to find naked
> people. Also, it would require more effort by people submitting a link -
> if the explanation of how couch is used isn't detailed enough, then the
> link isn't accepted.
>
> Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of
> the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read
> the site description.
>
> IMO this would allow us to strictly focus on the technical criteria of
> that page, whilst still allowing people to avoid opening any link that
> is unsuitable either for them or their environment.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn
> sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw that
> CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about building a
> media server on CouchDB.
>
> Antony Blakey
> --------------------------
> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
> Ph: 0438 840 787
>
> The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
> intelligent are full of doubt.
> -- Bertrand Russell
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am in agreement with what Antony has written above, and I vote to
eliminate judgement as well.
If a description does not include a suitably detailed explanation
of how CouchDB is being used, then it does not meet the required
criteria for being on the page. Also, the site description must be
descriptive and unambiguous.
~Michael
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Dean Landolt <de...@deanlandolt.com>.
>
>
> Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn sites
> have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw that CouchDB
> was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about building a media server
> on CouchDB.
Ha. You know what they say about the porn industry being the harbinger of
the tech world...
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 9:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be
> family
> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing
> a set of
> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
> standards. As
> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
>
> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does
> the
> community think? Is this link okay or not?
OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a
brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn
site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on
that page.
I think that not only improves the utility of the page, but also means
you won't be clicking on any link at work and be surprised to find
naked people. Also, it would require more effort by people submitting
a link - if the explanation of how couch is used isn't detailed
enough, then the link isn't accepted.
Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of
the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read
the site description.
IMO this would allow us to strictly focus on the technical criteria of
that page, whilst still allowing people to avoid opening any link that
is unsuitable either for them or their environment.
Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn
sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw
that CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about
building a media server on CouchDB.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 1:34 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Imagine a disgruntled DBA who decides that he's going to setup
> CouchDB Sucks and
> from that site he's doing to create one new website per day, each
> one using a
> subdomain and listing a new reason why CouchDB does, in fact, suck.
> Because he's
> using CouchDB for the website he justifies the addition of one new
> link per day
> to the links page. Each link goes to a different subdomain of
> CouchDB Sucks. How
> do we handle this? It's clear something is wrong here. Technically
> he meets our
> linking policy, but he's abusing our trust. The possibilities are
> endless.
I don't think that's an ethical decision. You could have a policy of
not allowing effectively duplicate links.
And for every way it can be abused, I suspect there is a technical
requirement that can be applied using strictly technical judgement. By
which I mean we could find a technical reason - which isn't the same
as inventing a technical reason. And if there was no technical reason,
then so be it. I'll die by the sword.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Lack of will power has caused more failure than lack of intelligence
or ability.
-- Flower A. Newhouse
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:17:23PM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
> Now, if the law of the hosting country allowed child porn for some
> bizarre reason, then I'd have to expose my inner Kantian, and would be
> making a different argument.
Well this was my point. I am guessing that we would come to a fairly quick
consensus that we didn't want to link to child abuse images, even if this was
bizarrely legal within the context of your suggestion. The point being that
there are an infinite number of potential edge cases where judging something on
legality alone would not be satisfactory.
Imagine a disgruntled DBA who decides that he's going to setup CouchDB Sucks and
from that site he's doing to create one new website per day, each one using a
subdomain and listing a new reason why CouchDB does, in fact, suck. Because he's
using CouchDB for the website he justifies the addition of one new link per day
to the links page. Each link goes to a different subdomain of CouchDB Sucks. How
do we handle this? It's clear something is wrong here. Technically he meets our
linking policy, but he's abusing our trust. The possibilities are endless.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 1:02 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I can imagine that there are some sites which we would not want to
> link to, even
> under your proposal. I do not have any concrete examples.
I wouldn't want to link to gambling sites, or weapons sites, or
misogynistic sites. But if it were up to me I would allow everything
not illegal, without exception, subject to technical requirements
being met.
> Even your suggestion
> of disallowing anything illegal is an ethical position. There is
> nothing
> intrinsic about common law that makes it an ethical baseline.
Of course the law has nothing to do with ethics - it's a combination
of prejudice, history, power and utilitarianism. I agree that
following the law can be, however, an ethical decision, although not
the basis on which I suggest we do so.
> Making the decision to disallow links to illegal content, or
> disallowing a
> particular link for whatever reason we decide, is an ethical
> judgement. As a
> community it is our right to do this. There is nothing objectivist
> about this as
> long as we frame it within a relative position.
I suggest that we follow the law as a pragmatic issue only. In so far
as virtually every decision has an ethical dimension, this is still
not objective, but I don't think there is anything better.
Now, if the law of the hosting country allowed child porn for some
bizarre reason, then I'd have to expose my inner Kantian, and would be
making a different argument. And in fact there is a real issue here -
France and Germany (at least) have laws against trading in
(discussing?) Nazi artifacts - both ebay and google have run into
that. Should we not allow that? And if we respect the laws of France
and Germany, then what about the laws of China or Burma or Thailand or
Saudi Arabia.
So there's no escaping some degree of ethical decision making. But
practically speaking, obeying the laws of the country in which you
host (or in which you could be prosecuted), seems a no-brainer, and
IMO can sidestep further disagreement.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.
-- Bertrand Russell
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:16:31AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
> Before long you have to ban some people from editing, and that is the
> equivalent of making a moral judgement. The system I proposed
> acknowledges that judgement is required, but shifts the domain from
> morals to a technical requirement on the format, and completeness of the
> annotation of the entry. And whilst I admit that my proposal is strongly
> grounded in a philosophical position, IMO it is also the most practical
> because the judgement is as far as possible objective and
> non-contentious.
I can imagine that there are some sites which we would not want to link to, even
under your proposal. I do not have any concrete examples. Even your suggestion
of disallowing anything illegal is an ethical position. There is nothing
intrinsic about common law that makes it an ethical baseline.
Making the decision to disallow links to illegal content, or disallowing a
particular link for whatever reason we decide, is an ethical judgement. As a
community it is our right to do this. There is nothing objectivist about this as
long as we frame it within a relative position.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 9:40 AM, lenz wrote:
> the situation here is different, it is a product page and it is
> actively
> edited by the community. after all it is a public wiki. if someone
> thinks
> that it is not right, change it, cut out the link part and just
> leave the
> wording, make a note, delete it and wait for the response of those
> entering
> the links. it is public opinion.
I think that promotes a battleground mentality. I'll delete any links
that reference or contain religious/violent/neocon/gambling/
hypocritical-anti-drug/pro-life etc material, even if the linked site
isn't *about* that, but merely happens to contain such material.
Someone puts it back, I take it down. That's the consequence of your
proposal.
Before long you have to ban some people from editing, and that is the
equivalent of making a moral judgement. The system I proposed
acknowledges that judgement is required, but shifts the domain from
morals to a technical requirement on the format, and completeness of
the annotation of the entry. And whilst I admit that my proposal is
strongly grounded in a philosophical position, IMO it is also the most
practical because the judgement is as far as possible objective and
non-contentious.
> i think that a product promotion page (thats what it is in fact) has
> a very
> different purpose than a broadly available news site or the way ISPs
> deal
> with content on their systems. i think if in doubt, delete the link
> and wait
> for the reaction or change the link into a text only link to not push
> traffic to pages that might not reflect the views of the majority of
> the
> community.
"the views of the majority of the community" sounds a lot like mob
prejudice.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid
starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this
is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.
-- Bertrand Russell
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by lenz <no...@googlemail.com>.
hi,
interesting discussion with two entirely different angles of view. i did ISP
work and know about the pain filtering/censoring/how-ever-you-call-it causes
if you have to treat a large amount of customers and can not afford to be
liable for your actions (or missing actions). from that point of view there
is only the "we do not filter at all" statement that lets you survive. you
act only on court orders or you die.
the situation here is different, it is a product page and it is actively
edited by the community. after all it is a public wiki. if someone thinks
that it is not right, change it, cut out the link part and just leave the
wording, make a note, delete it and wait for the response of those entering
the links. it is public opinion.
i think that a product promotion page (thats what it is in fact) has a very
different purpose than a broadly available news site or the way ISPs deal
with content on their systems. i think if in doubt, delete the link and wait
for the reaction or change the link into a text only link to not push
traffic to pages that might not reflect the views of the majority of the
community.
... just my 2 cents ...
cheers
lenz
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Antony,
>
> Thanks for your explanation, and for highlighting the problems associated
> with
> moral arbitration. I can see what you're trying to say. However, I think
> you
> slightly misunderstood my email, I wrote:
>
> > I can think of the following problematic areas:
>
> I was not suggesting that all of the things I listed are immoral in some
> absolute sense of the word. I was suggesting that they may be problematic
> for us
> a project. Unfortunately, outgoing project links can be seen as
> endorsements,
> and we must be careful about them in that respect.
>
> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be family
> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a set
> of
> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
> standards. As
> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
>
> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does the
> community think? Is this link okay or not?
>
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>
--
iWantMyName.com
painless domain registration (finally)
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Antony,
Thanks for your explanation, and for highlighting the problems associated with
moral arbitration. I can see what you're trying to say. However, I think you
slightly misunderstood my email, I wrote:
> I can think of the following problematic areas:
I was not suggesting that all of the things I listed are immoral in some
absolute sense of the word. I was suggesting that they may be problematic for us
a project. Unfortunately, outgoing project links can be seen as endorsements,
and we must be careful about them in that respect.
I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be family
friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a set of
hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these standards. As
a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does the
community think? Is this link okay or not?
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2009, at 6:12 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> If you want to use CouchDB to build your porn empire, all power to you --
>> but
>> I think that expecting a link from our wiki is a little too much to ask.
>
> Why? It's a page about apps using CouchDB, not a moral statement by a group
> of developers. I'm particularly concerned with comments that say that
> pornography is obviously unacceptable in the same sense that hate-sites are
> unacceptable. What about sites promoting FPS games that tout the realistic
> nature of their ultra-violent gruesomeness? Is sex really worse than the
> increasingly realistic depiction of such violence?
>
>> * Gambling
>
> Gambling is legal in many jurisdictions. The issue of the illegality of
> certain online gambling sites has more to do with issues of government
> control of revenue and taxation than any moral concern.
>
>> * Pornography
>
> It's highly likely that a porn site linked from the couch site is actually
> legal in many jurisdictions. And while I'm personally concerned about the
> explicit misogyny of much porn, what about a gay porn site?
>
I object to links to gay porn because of the rampant misandry. I am
tired of being objectified just because I'm a man.
>> * Untrusted sites for professional services, legal advice, online
>> pharmacies, &c
>
> What is untrusted? In any case, an online pharmacy may be the only/best
> source of pharmaceutical product in some places.
>
>> * Political or religious extremism, racial hatred, &c
>
> What qualifies as 'extreme' in a political sense is difficult to objectively
> determine. IMO you can't use the 'promotes hate' line because much of the
> mainstream political discourse I saw in the recent US election implicitly
> (and sometimes explicitly) promoted hatred. Racial vilification is a clearer
> issue, but what about homosexual vilification? And what is religious
> extremism? Is your definition of 'extreme' determined by a western christian
> viewpoint?
>
>> * Sites related to illegal activities, drug taking, copyright
>> infringement, &c
>
> Some drug taking that is illegal in the US isn't illegal in some
> jurisdictions (and in any case it's hypocritical considering the revenue
> raised from tobacco and alcohol, both of which are more dangerous than many
> illegal drugs). Still, IMO illegality is the only benchmark you can use for
> any of these issues.
>
> Personally I feel sites whose primary purpose is copyright infringement
> should be banned, but I'm in a minority in the connected community wrt
> copyright.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> I vote to allow anything that is legal in your hosting environment that
> meets the uses-couch requirement. Don't make ANY moral judgement, because
> you cannot objectively support such decisions, and it's only by making no
> judgement that you are insulated from the effects of making or not making a
> particular judgement.
>
> Alternatively, if you avoid anything that could offend anyone, then you
> can't link to anything political, or religious. Or any sites that promotes
> reproductive freedom or argues for abortion rights, or that has anything to
> do with alcohol, or has pictures of people drinking alcohol (those last two
> are offensive to muslims) etc etc. I've worked tangentially in
> internationalization and come across some of these issues. It's a nightmare.
> Don't go there.
>
> Antony Blakey
> --------------------------
> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
> Ph: 0438 840 787
>
> Reflecting on W.H. Auden's contemplation of 'necessary murders' in the
> Spanish Civil War, George Orwell wrote that such amorality was only really
> possible, 'if you are the kind of person who is always somewhere else when
> the trigger is pulled'.
> -- John Birmingham, "Appeasing Jakarta"
>
>
>
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Antony Blakey <an...@gmail.com>.
On 23/01/2009, at 6:12 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> If you want to use CouchDB to build your porn empire, all power to
> you -- but
> I think that expecting a link from our wiki is a little too much to
> ask.
Why? It's a page about apps using CouchDB, not a moral statement by a
group of developers. I'm particularly concerned with comments that say
that pornography is obviously unacceptable in the same sense that hate-
sites are unacceptable. What about sites promoting FPS games that tout
the realistic nature of their ultra-violent gruesomeness? Is sex
really worse than the increasingly realistic depiction of such violence?
> * Gambling
Gambling is legal in many jurisdictions. The issue of the illegality
of certain online gambling sites has more to do with issues of
government control of revenue and taxation than any moral concern.
> * Pornography
It's highly likely that a porn site linked from the couch site is
actually legal in many jurisdictions. And while I'm personally
concerned about the explicit misogyny of much porn, what about a gay
porn site?
> * Untrusted sites for professional services, legal advice, online
> pharmacies, &c
What is untrusted? In any case, an online pharmacy may be the only/
best source of pharmaceutical product in some places.
> * Political or religious extremism, racial hatred, &c
What qualifies as 'extreme' in a political sense is difficult to
objectively determine. IMO you can't use the 'promotes hate' line
because much of the mainstream political discourse I saw in the recent
US election implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) promoted hatred.
Racial vilification is a clearer issue, but what about homosexual
vilification? And what is religious extremism? Is your definition of
'extreme' determined by a western christian viewpoint?
> * Sites related to illegal activities, drug taking, copyright
> infringement, &c
Some drug taking that is illegal in the US isn't illegal in some
jurisdictions (and in any case it's hypocritical considering the
revenue raised from tobacco and alcohol, both of which are more
dangerous than many illegal drugs). Still, IMO illegality is the only
benchmark you can use for any of these issues.
Personally I feel sites whose primary purpose is copyright
infringement should be banned, but I'm in a minority in the connected
community wrt copyright.
------------------------------------------
I vote to allow anything that is legal in your hosting environment
that meets the uses-couch requirement. Don't make ANY moral judgement,
because you cannot objectively support such decisions, and it's only
by making no judgement that you are insulated from the effects of
making or not making a particular judgement.
Alternatively, if you avoid anything that could offend anyone, then
you can't link to anything political, or religious. Or any sites that
promotes reproductive freedom or argues for abortion rights, or that
has anything to do with alcohol, or has pictures of people drinking
alcohol (those last two are offensive to muslims) etc etc. I've worked
tangentially in internationalization and come across some of these
issues. It's a nightmare. Don't go there.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Reflecting on W.H. Auden's contemplation of 'necessary murders' in the
Spanish Civil War, George Orwell wrote that such amorality was only
really possible, 'if you are the kind of person who is always
somewhere else when the trigger is pulled'.
-- John Birmingham, "Appeasing Jakarta"
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0800, Chris Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any way we can tell whether or not it uses CouchDB?
> > Obviously, if not, we should remove it.
> > Otherwise, I'd be tempted to say leave it.
> >
>
> I think Noah's point that it's a slippery slope is important. Perhaps
> Gpirate is doing groundbreaking work with CouchDB... but if it were a
> hate-site or porn it'd likely be obvious that we'd remove it. I'm not
> sure where the line, as it is a fuzzy area.
If you want to use CouchDB to build your porn empire, all power to you -- but
I think that expecting a link from our wiki is a little too much to ask. Of the
top of my head, I can think of the following problematic areas:
* Gambling
* Pornography
* Sites selling weapons or promoting violence
* Untrusted sites for professional services, legal advice, online pharmacies, &c
* Political or religious extremism, racial hatred, &c
* Sites related to illegal activities, drug taking, copyright infringement, &c
> Maybe the ASF has thought this issue over before. If there's prior
> consensus from another ASF wiki about where the line is, it could make
> our decision easier.
Mentors, do you have any thoughts?
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any way we can tell whether or not it uses CouchDB?
> Obviously, if not, we should remove it.
> Otherwise, I'd be tempted to say leave it.
>
I think Noah's point that it's a slippery slope is important. Perhaps
Gpirate is doing groundbreaking work with CouchDB... but if it were a
hate-site or porn it'd likely be obvious that we'd remove it. I'm not
sure where the line, as it is a fuzzy area.
Maybe the ASF has thought this issue over before. If there's prior
consensus from another ASF wiki about where the line is, it could make
our decision easier.
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:11:22PM -0500, Patrick Aljord wrote:
>> > gpirate is a search engine and as such, has no clue what's described by
>> a
>> > .torrent file beyond what the basic information sections of the .torrent
>> > file tell them. At no time does any copyrighted content actually reside
>> on
>> > gpirate's servers, nor does it pass through gpirate's network. If you
>> > consider a .torrent file a "map," that map tells you the names of places
>> > (which may or may not be accurate), and how to get there.
>>
>> I am not for one second accusing gpirate of breaking the law.
>>
>> However, I am raising a concern with the framing of the website. For a
>> start,
>> the website is called GPirate which is a reference to copyright
>> infringement.
>> The website homepage has links to movies and TV shows I might like, the
>> ones
>> listed for me being items that would involve copyright infringement if I
>> was to
>> download them. There is an obvious framing here that the site is to be used
>> for
>> infringing copyright.
>>
>> I think that is a major problem, and I'm not sure we should link to it.
>>
>> > Also, note that all these torrents are available on google too.
>>
>> My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website and
>> purpose
>> differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded about
>> opportunities for copyright infringement.
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>>
>
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic rue
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
Is there any way we can tell whether or not it uses CouchDB?
Obviously, if not, we should remove it.
Otherwise, I'd be tempted to say leave it.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:11:22PM -0500, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> > gpirate is a search engine and as such, has no clue what's described by
> a
> > .torrent file beyond what the basic information sections of the .torrent
> > file tell them. At no time does any copyrighted content actually reside
> on
> > gpirate's servers, nor does it pass through gpirate's network. If you
> > consider a .torrent file a "map," that map tells you the names of places
> > (which may or may not be accurate), and how to get there.
>
> I am not for one second accusing gpirate of breaking the law.
>
> However, I am raising a concern with the framing of the website. For a
> start,
> the website is called GPirate which is a reference to copyright
> infringement.
> The website homepage has links to movies and TV shows I might like, the
> ones
> listed for me being items that would involve copyright infringement if I
> was to
> download them. There is an obvious framing here that the site is to be used
> for
> infringing copyright.
>
> I think that is a major problem, and I'm not sure we should link to it.
>
> > Also, note that all these torrents are available on google too.
>
> My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website and
> purpose
> differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded about
> opportunities for copyright infringement.
>
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>
Re: [Couchdb Wiki] Update of "CouchDB in the wild" by blackmagic
rue
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:11:22PM -0500, Patrick Aljord wrote:
> gpirate is a search engine and as such, has no clue what's described by a
> .torrent file beyond what the basic information sections of the .torrent
> file tell them. At no time does any copyrighted content actually reside on
> gpirate's servers, nor does it pass through gpirate's network. If you
> consider a .torrent file a "map," that map tells you the names of places
> (which may or may not be accurate), and how to get there.
I am not for one second accusing gpirate of breaking the law.
However, I am raising a concern with the framing of the website. For a start,
the website is called GPirate which is a reference to copyright infringement.
The website homepage has links to movies and TV shows I might like, the ones
listed for me being items that would involve copyright infringement if I was to
download them. There is an obvious framing here that the site is to be used for
infringing copyright.
I think that is a major problem, and I'm not sure we should link to it.
> Also, note that all these torrents are available on google too.
My concerns do not apply to Google because they frame their website and purpose
differently. When you visit Google you're not prompted or reminded about
opportunities for copyright infringement.
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater