Making copies of commercial DVDs is _absolutely_ not piracy. _Distribution_ of said DVDs is piracy (when it is for profit; otherwise it is not piracy, but copyright infringement). Making backup copies solely for personal use is perfectly legitimate. Therefore, software designed to create copies of commercial DVDs is not inherently piracy software, it is software designed to let me exercise fair use rights. Some might be made with the intentions of piracy, but not all of it. Same with software that lets me create images and rips. The fact that such software can be used for piracy does not make its purpose to be piracy any more than the fact that I can use the DOS "copy" command to make copies of copyright-protected executables makes "copy" a piracy tool, or even Internet Explorer's save command on copyrighted web pages. Even better is using an alternate browser for which the javascript used on a page to lock out the IE save command has no effect. According to your definition, Mozilla is a piracy tool!
How about a program that bypasses DRM copy protections placed on music CDs? Is that really a piracy tool? It is there so I can continue exercising my fair use rights on these CDs that I have exercised on all the other CDs: make backups of my CDs, make mix CDs, play them on my computer without juggling CDs, etc. Of course, the illegitimate DMCA claims that this is illegal, but it is a wrong law in the first place...
Piracy is a huge ghost. All of these schemes are not about stopping piracy, which the big content providers know can not be stopped, but rather to restrict or eliminate fair use.
Quote:
I'm not talking about blocking all ports, but many of the uneeded ones. Nearly all larger ISP's currently block port 25 because of spammers, for example.
|
There is no such thing as an "unneeded" port. Ports exist so you don't have communications conflicts. So long as you can run another service, you will need more ports. Further, ISPs restricting free ports to a few hundred (or less...) will make malicious attacks _easier_, since the time to scan for available ports on target PCs will be reduced 100 fold (32x to 100s range)! Zombie networks will become vastly more efficient if they can reduce the time spent analyzing target machines... There is no tangible benefit to restricting ports in a draconian manner.
Destroying the anonymity of the Internet is not a good goal to strive towards, especially not for the boogey man of piracy.
Prisons are already overcrowded with non-criminals persecuted in the war on drugs. We don't need to construct dozens of new prisons for petty software pirates too.
And don't forget about foreign, free proxy servers and encrypted transfer protocols that make any sort of tracking difficult...