[Full-disclosure] FatCat Auto SQLl Injector
This is an automatic SQL Injection tool called as FatCat, Use of FatCat for testing your web application and exploit your application more deeper. FatCat Features that help you to extract the Database information, Table information, and Column information from web application. Only If it is vulnerable to Mysql SQL Injection Vulnerability. The user friendly GUI of FatCat and automatically detect the sql vulnerability and start exploiting vulnerability. *Features* 1)Normal SQL Injection 2) Double Query SQL Injection *In Next Version* 1) WAF bypass 2) Cookie Header passing 3) Load File 3) Generating XSS from SQL *Requirement* 1) PHP Verison 5.3.0 2) Enable file_get_function *Print Screen * Click image for larger version Name: fatcat.jpg Views: 6 Size: 15.4 KB ID: 180 *Download* http://code.google.com/p/fatcat-sql-injector/downloads/list *Video* http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18007092/FatCat.swf ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[Full-disclosure] FatCat Auto SQLl Injector
This is an automatic SQL Injection tool called as FatCat, Use of FatCat for testing your web application and exploit your application more deeper. FatCat Features that help you to extract the Database information, Table information, and Column information from web application. Only If it is vulnerable to Mysql SQL Injection Vulnerability. The user friendly GUI of FatCat and automatically detect the sql vulnerability and start exploiting vulnerability. *Features* 1)Normal SQL Injection 2) Double Query SQL Injection *In Next Version* 1) WAF bypass 2) Cookie Header passing 3) Load File 3) Generating XSS from SQL *Requirement* 1) PHP Verison 5.3.0 2) Enable file_get_function *Print Screen * Click image for larger version Name: fatcat.jpg Views: 6 Size: 15.4 KB ID: 180 *Download* http://code.google.com/p/fatcat-sql-injector/downloads/list *Video* http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18007092/FatCat.swf ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[Full-disclosure] ..twitter rights
is posting attacking us gov site, or exposing personal info of another on twitter a freedom on speech/full disclosure? Twitter is the main voice of anon and they blatantly voice such. Even showing the vids and work. What is twitters take? -- been great, thanks RandyM a.k.a System ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Sadly you can't download routers and internet connections...especially without an internet connection. But I suppose you could be the regular joe and steal from your neighbours' bandwidth (it's a human right, remember? your neighbour doesn't have a right to keep the internets to himself!!!). /rant On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 3:36 PM, Christian Sciberras wrote: Sadly you can't download routers and internet connections...especially without an internet connection. But I suppose you could be the regular joe and steal from your neighbours' bandwidth (it's a human right, remember? your neighbour doesn't have a right to keep the internets to himself!!!). /rant On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ There are always public hotspots, hell even mcdonalds has them now. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large portion *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome to go re-read first sale doctrine ;) Just trying to make people actually engage their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows in the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all *over* the place. (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from fair-use accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :) pgpzEuY3nOpIX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
That has always been viewed from the consumer perspective. If you look at it from the producers' perspective, you'll see their right to withhold their creative content until you pay something back. While the terminology is not correct, it doesn't mean you can abuse it and expect people to waste time for you. Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Laurelai - Yes, I'm sure McDonalds have acknowledged your human right to a free internet connection. Next thing they'll be feeding you for free as well On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large portion *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome to go re-read first sale doctrine ;) Just trying to make people actually engage their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows in the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all *over* the place. (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from fair-use accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :) ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 -0800 Zach C. fxc...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 27, 2012 4:07 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Value has still been exchanged, assuming no literal theft was involved to make the whole thing criminal anyway. If you make a copy, you're pretty much creating (or, if you prefer, *re*-creating) value out of basically nothing using source material, but nothing of value goes back to the original creator of what was copied. Except that there are plenty of legal and unquestionably ethical situations where things are copied without any transfer of value to the original creator. Nothing is created in a vacuum; musicians are inspired by other musicians, film makers by other film makers, authors by authors, etc. Nobody is so original that they can claim that their creative work did not borrow ideas from other creative work. Moreover, even copying a work in its entirety may fall under fair use; when was the last time you paid royalties for the use of the Happy Birthday song? 2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was attemting to steal them from the artist? All of the above; while the companies' creative accounting is almost criminally bullshit, the artist *still* gets a cut and even a profit if they do well enough. As a nasty little bonus, any profit taken from those companies will never, ever be seen by the artist regardless. There is a 100% better chance of an artist receiving money via a record company getting paid for the artist's work than a record company *not* getting paid from the artist's work. It's gotta come from somewhere. So if you're screwing them and they're screwing the artist, you just wind up making them screw the artist that much harder. This is not as clear-cut as one might think. Musicians make a lot of money doing live shows, and a live show is an experience that cannot be downloaded. Attendance at live shows is driven by the popularity of the musicians, which is increased by downloading as much as it is increased by radio broadcasting, if not more. One of the major criticisms of Metallica's lawsuit against Napster users was that in their early days, Metallica became popular because people would record them at their concerts and distribute the recordings. The way I see it, the way we cling to copyrights and try to protect industries that were built on the copyright system when we now have computers and computer networks is equivalent to hiring scribes and protecting their jobs in an age of printing presses. Copyrights were a great idea back when copying creative works required specialized industrial equipment. Since that is no longer the case, we should instead be investigating new systems for promoting art and science and building new industries around such systems. Copyrights are not going to die overnight, just like scribes continued to be employed for some time after the printing press spread, but eventually copyrights are going to die -- or else computers and global computer networks are going to have to die. I doubt that technology can be rolled back, but creating a new legal framework does not seem to be infeasible. - -- Ben - -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu - -- If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. - George Orwell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPJHGjAAoJEOV0+MnZK9ij8DgP/18O3od/dCCCntoh6ygS0P0O TRCOCp/0wcZzS+lJuWSLnpelOqXEiWaSVxQst0Wwab4DN5t2Iif1gjp6Ot54aTn4 Ub8mBYm/nn0QZI7t75A22zLJkSPdgpQt66YvLLaghqnfhDvbJ9UrdpYpDiXkJhFV 19yyZKtQnXN0SnbkzVq8WiQXcP/49dE2UjacV7cO9D9Z8jUUaw4K9Z5w2Lv0rzap NL0XANYJ9QWA2hdzaoaAF7c5p6gfQoQOLBsVSP1x14OEZCezk9zc9+ZgVtx1FEqq /JIiAVKzkklBBNUM2wLMVUSo7wT0wXYBqBmEtLfHohJVIoa7FKfqJi3qmcqZ4dON
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:16:45 + Thor (Hammer of God) t...@hammerofgod.com wrote: -Original Message- From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure- boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:06 PM To: Michael Schmidt Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? These arguments do more harm than good. You can't base property law This is not a discussion about property law, it is a discussion about copyrights. Copyrights, at least in my country, are very much different from property rights: 1. Property rights never expire; copyrights are required to expire by the constitution. 2. Property rights are not optional, but automatic; copyrights are an optional system according to the constitution, and if Congress wanted to they could do away with copyrights. But if you were not going to pay full price, that doesn't give you any right to steal it. That is simply absurd. This is not a discussion about stealing either. We do not charge people with theft/robbery/larceny/etc. when they download or share music, even when they do so on a felony scale. But whether or not the behavior ends up benefiting the industry or not is irrelevant; I've still broken the law. That is up to a judge; copyright cases must be heard by a judge, who decides whether or not a particular act of copying is fair use (or at least that was the original theory). That's where is should end, but it doesn't. Sharing music not purchased is already illegal. Not always; Wikipedia has a large selection of public domain music available for download, as do many other sources. There is music that is licensed under one of various creative commons licenses. The companies already have legal remedies available. Which are not appropriate for dealing with cases of home users downloading and sharing music/etc. Copyright law is designed to be heard in front of a judge, with expensive lawyers arguing the case; there is no way that such a system could possibly work to prevent individual people from downloading/sharing and everyone knows it. The RIAA sought such huge, headline grabbing damages in an attempt to scare people away from P2P, and even that failed -- they just damaged their reputation and drove people to use file sharing websites, which are shielded by the DMCA. This is not to say that the law should be strengthened or that the government should be hijacked to further the interests of copyright holders. This just means that copyright is out of date and needs to be completely overhauled. Unfortunately, the people who are supposed to benefit from the copyright system, the general public, have nothing close to the political and financial power that the copyright industry lobbyists have. The best compromise I can think of is to treat noncommercial copyright infringement like a parking violation: you get a ticket for some small but annoying amount of money. That is the only way to enforce a law that everyone is meant to follow and that anyone can easily break. It is absurd to think that our judicial system can handle the volume of cases that would be required to enforce copyrights, and the other option is to just let the old industries die (which is probably not a bad idea). The fun begins when the record companies start sniping each other. That is how it is supposed to be. Remember when The Verve got their pants sued of by the Rolling Stones copyright holder for Bittersweet Symphony? It was a clean cut case of copyright infringement. What if SOPA or the next round of it does pass - will ABKCO Records legally be able to get Hut Records entire web site shut down? The point of SOPA is to kill the Internet; that is what all these laws and government actions are building towards. The old media giants do not want to die, and they know that a network where anyone can share entertainment with anyone else will ultimately kill them. What they would prefer is something like the cable TV system: a network where the consumers are only able to consume. They love the cable TV system because they only have to deal with other corporations, who can be taken to court where copyright law can be reasonably applied. - --
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:49:09 +0100 Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: That has always been viewed from the consumer perspective. Copyrights exist for consumers, at least according to the US constitution: The Congress shall have the Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries... Copyrights do not exist for the benefit of producers; that is only a means to an end. The point of the copyright system is to benefit the general public. If you look at it from the producers' perspective, you'll see their right to withhold their creative content until you pay something back. ...which is not the same as their right to prevent you from making copies of their work. Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. Really though, what difference does it make if copyright industries are losing money? When last I checked, the stagecoach industry lost lots of money when the automobile was invented. Would you claim that people were stealing from stagecoach drivers by failing to support that industry and instead using their cars? Are you crying foul when people use digital cameras and incur losses for the film industry? Who was stealing from all those sheet music copyists and printers who lost their jobs because of the recording industry? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? - -- Ben - -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu - -- If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. - George Orwell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPJIFrAAoJEOV0+MnZK9ijkMAQAJyEcn82uLXVPFi1xnawUf+7 VkV5kVLv8idMRFqaByi3k+O7pYQEB9s5vah8NGHpJH34HSanQ4yqkMap1RR1G6S5 gMlHS1Cdut1u6GaUwTL7m8DkU2knWoBF4oEsh2GCn0zU1H18Mi/y83WmHRiqXVDD Oq45RwhSmoy/3IhucxqQFQDubQ4Hb3MiA1R5zzqKCNTpRP/eL3hdCDiFUbzIRu+F i4xpeVfE4c5KDYfNU0vvB/PKThmUg1gGmtTegNiidoAfSGXIwxRueKRkL0oRN5H/ DYYEgztadAWzVA58u8KC2Zkv+8Mfq6+tOqFz2MVMtz4B6DLX/8pEaW6liPiMYbXt KFT4Me2uNzj6t3heaqROBq2gDNIQg57p+eU2QXiNx0u0M+CpM1KBhGjjsjFdkqwo NljJ4nd5b1KNzu2Oyg4Up+xngWi2gIOkM/2nC24IzFxkkEQw4y2P4+dQqAiZgc92 XuHRay1AzFXMNn2GvAnMWVCZ3ZSFXwP3LOXo5gNpii9wC4wiGEZWEWbvdVJvHM9T MujLHejTeMi755fP1QtDbt0bk0353qXy2QEDg1h25pE/2KjIjXtnvWQhI7Hg4oDB K+mjXVS2b0Wd6pun8GWcEgUbfxtqzFP1MWBdkdIuKy/ixoVMgkuhHZLhJhK9XOWY XwXG3eDg4pP4i0dpqo9Z =G9my -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. the shop can supplement the stolen CD for much less than 14.99, and also manufacturing a cd cost much less. the price not only contains the material value of the given product, but it is an arbitrary number, which was calculated based on the cost of the production(and marketing, and shipping, and etc.) costs of the product, and on the demand and pricing of that kind of product, so basically the market. the difference with the digital goods that there is no material part of the package, so it could seem that there is no theft and no loss of revenue. which could be true, if only those would pirate, who otherwise wouldn't/couldn't buy the product, which imo is not true. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. if you steal a bottle of milk, you can argue that it was right before the shop closing, and the warranty would have expired before they could sell it to somebody else, and demand them to prove it otherwise... Really though, what difference does it make if copyright industries are losing money? When last I checked, the stagecoach industry lost lots of money when the automobile was invented. Would you claim that people were stealing from stagecoach drivers by failing to support that industry and instead using their cars? Are you crying foul when people use digital cameras and incur losses for the film industry? Who was stealing from all those sheet music copyists and printers who lost their jobs because of the recording industry? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? you forgot to link the original article, fixed it for you: http://torrentfreak.com/the-red-flag-act-of-1865-110626/ -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Copyrights exist for consumers, at least according to the US constitution: snip And? I'm talking about the simple fact that the producer has the right to earn money from his creation. Copyright is just a tool. Copyrights do not exist for the benefit of producers; that is only a means to an end. The point of the copyright system is to benefit the general public. Exactly. So, in your own words, producers are at a loss. ...which is not the same as their right to prevent you from making copies of their work. Oh come on. Who are you trying to feed that to? You know damn well current court cases target 'copyright infringement' for non-personal usesuch as copying such material and selling it for profit. Why don't you just admit many people out there are afraid of loosing their little racket? Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. Can you prove that a company/group can live on by handing out free copies of their song on the internet? How many companies out there do that? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? Lets turn this to a different parallel issue, open source. Last I checked, income for opensource projects tend to come from one of the following: - advertisements - paid support - training How many such activities play well with records companies? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[Full-disclosure] google permit to remove the pictures from your blog if you link your gmail account with an android mobile phone
Could sound not so useful...fancy... what you want... but if you link a gmail account with a blog... on an android mobile phone... and you visit for the first time your blog... they save only your blog post pictures/screenshot in the gallery section of your android mobile phone... after that if you deletes from the gallery section they also delete from your blog... interesting doesn't it ? thank you very much Google! For the confirm please follow here... http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=7e9935b445fc750fhl=enfid=7e9935b445fc750f0004b79f3980ac70 -- http://extraexploit.blogspot.com ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:30:21 +0100, Christian Sciberras said: Can you prove that a company/group can live on by handing out free copies of their song on the internet? How many companies out there do that? Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. pgpBoKcFsSoOW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. So why bother with album sales in the first place? This is the same with free/commercial software. At the end of the day the creator decides the sales strategy. The only thing I can see in this is that the recording industry really needs to grow up to the times, but piracy is not a solution nor the means to one, just like DDoSing facebook is not the means to the removal of a certain bill/law (arguably, to the contrary). The recording companies have every right to retaliate just as the FBI has every right to arrest suspects involved in these childish acts. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 6:55 PM, Christian Sciberras wrote: Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. So why bother with album sales in the first place? This is the same with free/commercial software. At the end of the day the creator decides the sales strategy. The only thing I can see in this is that the recording industry really needs to grow up to the times, but piracy is not a solution nor the means to one, just like DDoSing facebook is not the means to the removal of a certain bill/law (arguably, to the contrary). The recording companies have every right to retaliate just as the FBI has every right to arrest suspects involved in these childish acts. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5217.George_Bernard_Shaw, /Man and Superman http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/376394/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
