undefined | Better HN

0 pointsascar5y ago0 comments

Well, it's very similar to many other real situations like common household doors. They provide a weak level of protection and we add laws that criminalize getting unauthorized entry.

I'm sometimes baffled that people miss that point when it comes to internet security. The biggest real difference is the global nature of the internet and thus problems with jurisdiction, which obviously doesn't apply if both sides reside in the same jurisdiction.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

feanaro5y ago

This particular protection mechanism is bypassed by all browsers when they access the content. Are browsers infringing too?

Clearly what is most important is the intent. In this case, it is very clearly RIAA's intent to make the aforementioned videos obtainable publicly via the use of HTTP agents. Browsers are HTTP agents. youtube-dl is an HTTP agent. Either they are all infringing or they are all not infringing.

On the other hand, it is clearly the intent of my door and lock to keep people out.

Reelin5y ago

We don't criminalize lock picks though, just their illicit use (and any following actions).

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse