First off, I don't get the whole "Google is the enemy" position. If you choose to use Google (gmail, search, etc), then you are CHOOSING to use Google. Just because Google managed to make money, doesn't make them evil... just successful.
Second, I haven't seen anyone mention SSL. It would seem that if all websites were 100% SSL (as Google and most security folks recommend), it would make this process a lot harder.
Third, am I the only one that suspects that if the ISPs actually block the Google adds, they will not remove them, but REPLACE them with their own (without payment to the site that generated the traffic)?
When Holder said Rosen "was labeled as a co-conspirator. I mean, you had to do that as a result of the statute", what he could have meant was "for us to prosecute the reporter under this statute, we had to name his as a co-conspirator because we couldn't charge him any other way (and we were bloody well going to charge him)."
His remorse was that he couldn't go after him directly. ;)
They didn't seize the content ABS claims copyright to, they seized the domain names that the site ABSOLUTELY "owns". As such the "owner" does loose control of their property.
Also, your use of "much of the material" implies that you aren't sure that the site is 100% infringing... Yet, 100% of the site is supposed to be blocked. So your implication that "it's clear who owns the rights" is questionable.
Seems like your response is "clearly NOT on point".
It sounds to me like the minister was trying to say "we aren't going to save the URL you visited, just the IP address". While "better", in many instances it's pretty darned close to the same amount of info.
Let's assume for the moment that everything is as the photographer describes. He put the camera down, turned his back and the monkey picked up the camera and took a bunch of pictures. Let's also assume that the photos the monkey took ARE public domain.
Now for the question... If the photographer looked through the "hundreds" of photos the monkey took and picked one and post processed it, can he legitimately claim copyright on the resulting POST PROCESSED image?
About 20 of those hits were listed as DLPhotoLineup hits... I'm not 100% sure, but I assume that means that his photo was included in a photo lineup! NPR says in this article that some people believe that this practice lands innocent people in jail.
The collection agency is going to take a cut. So, the newspaper pays Google, Google keeps half of the money and gives the other half to the collection agency which takes their cut and passes the rest back to the paper.
Oh, and don't forget bank charges, time, accounting, legal disputes, etc.... Yeah, the only one that wins is the collection agency.
1 - you don't "test" with live client data! 2 - Would GS expect to be able to call the USPS and say "ummm, we mailed a statement to the wrong user, will you make sure it isn't delivered for us?" 3 - you don't "test" with live client data!! 4 - email should NEVER be assumed to be secure during transit unless you fully encrypt it 5 - you don't "test" with live client data!!! 6 - Once you've sent it to the wrong address, YOU sent it to the wrong address. 7 - see steps 1, 3 and 5!!!!
I've seen some reports that say that Google and Apple settled and others that say that Motorola and Apple settled.
If it is Motorola / Apple that settled, it really doesn't mean much as Google kept the "good" mobile patents. Besides, Apple might be hoping not to start a patent war with Lenovo (which has thousands of patents NOT related to the mobile world). Who know how many patents that IBM sold to Lenovo that Apple is worrying that it might be CONSTRUED as infringing.
No one said they hired a crew.... The US has Corps of Engineer guys pretty much everywhere (with equipment, supplies, etc) that are very skilled. Match a few of them with a couple of spy types, and I can absolutely see the events described being executed.
With that said, I'm with you on the still needing proof, but it's certainly possible.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Keep in mind folks, this is the USPS (you know, the guys that go "postal" all the time) - chances are someone simply screwed up and delivered to the wrong address.
With that said, anyone interested in 40 acres of ocean front property I have in Arkansas?
Could it be that Congress saw how much of a hot potato SOPA was and how many people got ticked off and might not vote for them, so they are offloading the blame on the executive branch if TAFTA (etc) pisses everyone off.
Nah... couldn't be. That would mean that they are smart enough to SEE that people are likely to get pissed off and they are too oblivious for that.
On the post: European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google
A couple of points
Second, I haven't seen anyone mention SSL. It would seem that if all websites were 100% SSL (as Google and most security folks recommend), it would make this process a lot harder.
Third, am I the only one that suspects that if the ISPs actually block the Google adds, they will not remove them, but REPLACE them with their own (without payment to the site that generated the traffic)?
On the post: Phi Sigma Sigma Sorority Sues Member For Revealing Secret Handshake On Penny Arcade Forum
Face Palm
On the post: Surprise: Spanish Newspapers Beg Government And EU To Stop Google News Shutting Down
If "forced" to provide links...
Problem solved.... Of course not, but it makes as much sense as what's being requested.
On the post: Eric Holder Says He Regrets Lying To A Judge And Saying A Reporter Was A 'Co-Conspirator' But The Law Made Him Do It
An alternate reading of the quote...
His remorse was that he couldn't go after him directly. ;)
On the post: IP Is No Excuse: Even If Someone Is Using Fake Chips, It's Not Okay To Kill Their Devices
Open Source
On the post: The NSA's Clearance Rack Goes Public, Offering An Assortment Of Declassified Patents For Use In The Private Sector
Just what we need...
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
A little problem with your assessment....
Also, your use of "much of the material" implies that you aren't sure that the site is 100% infringing... Yet, 100% of the site is supposed to be blocked. So your implication that "it's clear who owns the rights" is questionable.
Seems like your response is "clearly NOT on point".
On the post: Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention Had No Idea What A VPN Is
Not saving url
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Rhetorical question, right?
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Devils Advocate
Now for the question... If the photographer looked through the "hundreds" of photos the monkey took and picked one and post processed it, can he legitimately claim copyright on the resulting POST PROCESSED image?
On the post: Documents Show 100 Officers From 28 Law Enforcement Agencies Accessed A Photographer's Records
DLPhotoLineup
That couldn't be the intent... Could it? ;)
On the post: Spain Likely To Pass 'Google Tax'; Makes Paying For News Snippets An 'Inalienable Right' And A New Bureaucracy To Collect It
Then only the collection agency wins...
Oh, and don't forget bank charges, time, accounting, legal disputes, etc.... Yeah, the only one that wins is the collection agency.
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
An ID-10-T error if I've ever seen one....
2 - Would GS expect to be able to call the USPS and say "ummm, we mailed a statement to the wrong user, will you make sure it isn't delivered for us?"
3 - you don't "test" with live client data!!
4 - email should NEVER be assumed to be secure during transit unless you fully encrypt it
5 - you don't "test" with live client data!!!
6 - Once you've sent it to the wrong address, YOU sent it to the wrong address.
7 - see steps 1, 3 and 5!!!!
On the post: IRS Rejects Non-Profit Status For Open Source Organization, Because Private Companies Might Use The Software
Donation of Lead
On the post: FOIA Request On Effectiveness Of License Plate Readers Greeted With A Blank Stare By Virginia Police Department
Extrapolated Error Rate of 75%
Do we know if anyone has actually verified the read error rate? That would be the FOI request I would make.
On the post: Apple And Google Finally End Patent Nuclear War: Settle All (Direct) Disputes
Google or Motorola?
If it is Motorola / Apple that settled, it really doesn't mean much as Google kept the "good" mobile patents. Besides, Apple might be hoping not to start a patent war with Lenovo (which has thousands of patents NOT related to the mobile world). Who know how many patents that IBM sold to Lenovo that Apple is worrying that it might be CONSTRUED as infringing.
On the post: Mike Rogers Tries To Make The Case That Glenn Greenwald Should Be Prosecuted For 'Selling Stolen Material'
Re: information crimes
On the post: Night Of First Ed Snowden Story, Streets In Front Of Guardian's NY Office & Home Of Its US Editor Suddenly Dug Up
Maybe not
With that said, I'm with you on the still needing proof, but it's certainly possible.
On the post: NSA Interception In Action? Tor Developer's Computer Gets Mysteriously Re-Routed To Virginia
Hanlon's Razor
Keep in mind folks, this is the USPS (you know, the guys that go "postal" all the time) - chances are someone simply screwed up and delivered to the wrong address.
With that said, anyone interested in 40 acres of ocean front property I have in Arkansas?
On the post: Congress Introduce Bi-Partisan Bill To Abdicate Its Own Role And Screw Over American Public All At Once
Blowback from SOPA?
Nah... couldn't be. That would mean that they are smart enough to SEE that people are likely to get pissed off and they are too oblivious for that.
Next >>