Pretty much everywhere that Primewire sends me has these big dumb banner ads with fake 'Play' and 'Download' buttons to try and trick you into installing iLivid. So that 90% figure could even be true, although it's basically one particular PUP and maybe actual malware one time in a thousand.
You have completely the wrong idea about what metadata is. The transcript is content, not metadata. Metadata would just be a list of who was there and who talked to who at what time, not what they actually said to each other.
This is the worst thing I've seen on Techdirt ever.
This is the most appallingly crass, thoughtless, insensitive post I've ever seen on TD. Look, I'm perfectly aware that it's not your _intention_ to trivialise and belittle the feelings of those who have suffered *real* abuse, but it's the absolutely inevitable and easily-forseeable consequence of casually throwing around this metaphor, and you should not have posted this article in its current form.
There's a classic poem whose name escapes me now that refers to "that which every schoolboy learns / those to whom evil is done, do evil in return." You could have used that or any one of a vast number of other metaphors to make the same point without being so tasteless and insensitive. Why don't you do the right thing by those who have suffered real and ongoing harm: pull the post, rewrite it in a different way that still makes the same point, and repost it when you can be confident that it's not going to cause offence and distress for no good reason.
>"Boston College is telling students that simply using a wireless router is a sign of copyright infringement. Take a look at the image below:"
I did; it says no such thing.
Firstly, it is not a list of "signs of" copyright infringement but a list of "examples of", so you haven't even described it accurately. Let me explain in terms that even a child could understand: "sign of" is to "example of" as "symptom" is to "disease". If you really can't tell the difference between those two concepts, you aren't competent to be writing professionally.
Secondly, it doesn't even say that using a wireless router is an example of copyright infringement. It says, very clearly, that if you use a wireless router somebody else might infringe copyright using the same router and you might get the blame. YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE SECOND-HALF OF THE SENTENCE AFTER THE SEMI-COLON AND PRETEND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT.
Well, you can, but how the hell you can seriously expect your pretence to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes is beyond me.
Well, actually even that's not beyond me; you just want to write a sensationalist headline, you know full well that it will generate tons of angry comments from people who have trusted your misbegotten malinterpretation of events and not even clicked on the big version of the picture.
You aren't actually stupid or illiterate or blind, you are just faking it to try and justify your deliberate out-of-context mangling and misinterpretation of perfectly plain English.
Hell, you'd be the first to complain if someone wrote a big article that just took the last half of your headline and ignored the rest to say "Techdirt claims 'Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement'", but that is exactly what you have just done.
On the post: DailyDirt: Correlations With Living Longer
On the post: VP Of EU Commission On Copyright Reform: 'I'd Sing You Happy Birthday, But I Don't Want To Have To Pay The Royalties'
>"people bypass the copyright system using alternatives like open source"
On the post: DailyDirt: The Future Is All About Hovering
Seriously?
On the post: Techdirt Is Now 100% SSL
Re: Hostname mismatch warning
On the post: Copyright Industry Publishes Data-Free Report Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers
Re: the Celine Dion CD that destroyed iMacs
On the post: Copyright Industry Publishes Data-Free Report Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers
It's bloody iLivid, isn't it?
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
>"a hybrid of documentary and fiction"
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Re: Feel free to shoot me down.
On the post: Vicious Cycle: When Those Abused By Trademark Abuse Others With Trademark
This is the worst thing I've seen on Techdirt ever.
There's a classic poem whose name escapes me now that refers to "that which every schoolboy learns / those to whom evil is done, do evil in return." You could have used that or any one of a vast number of other metaphors to make the same point without being so tasteless and insensitive. Why don't you do the right thing by those who have suffered real and ongoing harm: pull the post, rewrite it in a different way that still makes the same point, and repost it when you can be confident that it's not going to cause offence and distress for no good reason.
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
This entire article is a bare-faced lie.
I did; it says no such thing.
Firstly, it is not a list of "signs of" copyright infringement but a list of "examples of", so you haven't even described it accurately. Let me explain in terms that even a child could understand: "sign of" is to "example of" as "symptom" is to "disease". If you really can't tell the difference between those two concepts, you aren't competent to be writing professionally.
Secondly, it doesn't even say that using a wireless router is an example of copyright infringement. It says, very clearly, that if you use a wireless router somebody else might infringe copyright using the same router and you might get the blame. YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE SECOND-HALF OF THE SENTENCE AFTER THE SEMI-COLON AND PRETEND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT.
Well, you can, but how the hell you can seriously expect your pretence to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes is beyond me.
Well, actually even that's not beyond me; you just want to write a sensationalist headline, you know full well that it will generate tons of angry comments from people who have trusted your misbegotten malinterpretation of events and not even clicked on the big version of the picture.
You aren't actually stupid or illiterate or blind, you are just faking it to try and justify your deliberate out-of-context mangling and misinterpretation of perfectly plain English.
Hell, you'd be the first to complain if someone wrote a big article that just took the last half of your headline and ignored the rest to say "Techdirt claims 'Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement'", but that is exactly what you have just done.
Next >>