Dr.Web for licensed content
On January 31, 2014, Doctor Web, on its website, published the news " Dr.Web to help content owners. " Now the company is ready to block sites on request of the copyright holders, subject to the provision of documents proving that the content belongs to this copyright holder. There is a form to send a lock request.
The first question that arises for me is: why does the manufacturer of antivirus software care so much about content that falls under the category not licensed?
Once, the Doctor Web company (unfortunately, did not find this news after years) said that they were indifferent to a pirated or licensed version of the operating system on the user's computer. For them, the main thing is computer anti-virus protection. And now they are on the side of the owners. They are easy to understand. The company has at its disposal a large user base, the presence of Parental Control in its products, as well as SpIDer Gate web antivirus. And in this case, all the prerequisites to help users avoid infecting the computer with viruses that are on sites with pirated content. I support the majority, which is not always the case. Under the lock can get a resource is not entirely legal, but without viruses. It is not advisable to give examples of these resources.
Dr.Web February 5, 2014 published the news with an invitation to take the survey. Link to the news: Doctor Web is conducting a survey on access to pirated sites . The survey itself is conducted on this page: Pirate sites: can not walk be blocked? The survey is conducted from 5 to 15 February 2014.
')
I propose to hold a discussion. How do you feel about the fact that the antivirus program will take care of the licensing of the content that you are viewing or downloading?
Update from pansa : These are our new vistas so compose the texts, that at least stop at least = (
I repeat: it is only about issuing a warning to the user that there is content on the resource that they are not entitled to distribute. There will also be a "Continue" button to go to the resource. No restrictions, not to mention the fact that the user can disable this filter at all.
The first question that arises for me is: why does the manufacturer of antivirus software care so much about content that falls under the category not licensed?
Once, the Doctor Web company (unfortunately, did not find this news after years) said that they were indifferent to a pirated or licensed version of the operating system on the user's computer. For them, the main thing is computer anti-virus protection. And now they are on the side of the owners. They are easy to understand. The company has at its disposal a large user base, the presence of Parental Control in its products, as well as SpIDer Gate web antivirus. And in this case, all the prerequisites to help users avoid infecting the computer with viruses that are on sites with pirated content. I support the majority, which is not always the case. Under the lock can get a resource is not entirely legal, but without viruses. It is not advisable to give examples of these resources.
Dr.Web February 5, 2014 published the news with an invitation to take the survey. Link to the news: Doctor Web is conducting a survey on access to pirated sites . The survey itself is conducted on this page: Pirate sites: can not walk be blocked? The survey is conducted from 5 to 15 February 2014.
')
I propose to hold a discussion. How do you feel about the fact that the antivirus program will take care of the licensing of the content that you are viewing or downloading?
Update from pansa : These are our new vistas so compose the texts, that at least stop at least = (
I repeat: it is only about issuing a warning to the user that there is content on the resource that they are not entitled to distribute. There will also be a "Continue" button to go to the resource. No restrictions, not to mention the fact that the user can disable this filter at all.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/211584/
All Articles