There are delays, and then there are delays. Inevitably the worst (DNS blocking) will happen.
It's not just legislators in the United States that play this game. We've had it in Canada for decades in that something is passed, then controversial stuff is delayed for further study. Most often by a group of MPs and Senators belonging to the party supporting the bill in the overwhelming majority who tour the country to hear opinions and then suddenly find the need to go overseas to study how other countries do it. Say Australian or New Zealand in the middle of the Canadian winter.
Now if you REALLY want to delay something, create a Royal Commission on (FIT SUBJECT HERE). They can go on for years, sometimes decades! Along with more need to visit countries in winter who are in summer so that they can study something, just about anything, there.
While all this is going on bit by sneaky bit stuff like blocking one or two then more and more sites would take place, all for study, don't you know, to see just what the actual affect would be on the internet under real conditions. You know, just one or two sites here and there to see if the redirects and that kinda stuff does seem to DNSSEC like a "man in the middle" attack. After all, real data is needed, don't you know.
As has been said if the site had attributed the work that would have been fair use. Even without links and all that good stuff. The Creative Commons license used only requires attribution and on a non commercial site or for non commercial purposes.
Oh, $9.95 a month is outrageous? Goodness, that is awful, isn't it? More than a subscription to a porn site, do ya think?
I guess, as they're an advocacy group you COULD say they're some kind of loose union though they don't seem to advocate strikes, wage negotiations and other things unions do but I guess you COULD if you stretch it.
I have no doubt that they'll get some members as a result of taking that stand, they do stand to lose others of course so as an organizing tool it's probably not a great one.
What they are saying is that a free and open Internet is vital to artists of all kinds and this solution to piracy, including the ones they cite, are just the wrong way to go about this. As in messing with the DNS system isn't the way to keep the Internet free and open. And they're right.
As for what you posted immediately after this it makes little or no sense. Is it Mike you're referring to or the site the story is talking about? Or is it about anything at all?
If you could show me a reasoned, demonstrable argument they've made I, along with many others would be delighted to see it.
Thus far they haven't. Filling campaign fodders doesn't count as a reasoned argument. Nor does it count as open and public discussion.
In fact, PIPA does have a bit of a backroom stench to it or Leahy wouldn't be bringing in a "managers amendment" to try to settle down some of the groups he mentioned. He'd have heard from them BEFORE the bill ever hit the Senate floor.
To pretend that it can all be solved by putting off the DNS nonsense until it's studied, likely by the same people how studied it to come up with the nonsense to start with, before it's quietly implemented. Oh, joy!
Actually, the power they received comes from both the people and the US Constitution not from those who fill their election coffers. It's long past time they remembered that.
This is an op-ed and op-eds aren't the newspaper's stance or opinion like editorials are. Still, it's amusing that the op-ed appeared in the same newspaper associated with Righthaven.
I did notice that the comments section following the article has already been trolled by the Copyright Alliance, so the astroturf didn't take all that long to land there. As did some of the silly arguments they use.
The op-ed makes sense, the response from the Copyright Alliance doesn't hold water on the other hand as it doesn't examine the problem but simply says it's ok to break the Internet to protect the copyrights held by the Entrainment and publishing industries. All for the artists. Of course.
The issue Vixie is outlining isn't just that DNS won't do what PIPA/SOPA want it to do but that there is nothing, no signal, no nothing that won't look to DNSSEC as an attack or potential attack. Or just a failure and the lookup will try again and keep trying overloading ISP servers.
Any way you look at it technically it can't be done the way SOPA/PIPA supporters want it to be done.
All to legislate a potential future, not a real one, for two failing entertainment sectors. Both failing at their own hand, I might add. (Again. ;-))
As for governments institutionalizing lying, even in the west, I'm afraid that happened decades ago. You know, things like domino theories and all that stuff, weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that were never found once the troops landed and so on.
So why not now? Why not try to poison DNS so that it lies too. That way governments think they have control over something they've had no control of to now.
I'd argue that Reddit's and Slashdot's readers would already be well versed on SOPA/PIPA while others may not be. The question sites need to ask themselves is when does this become an act of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
A complete shutdown of Google would be an example of spiting your face because, depending on how Reddit does its shutdown that may send casual users skittering off to Google to find out why, for how long and so on.
Facebook won't shut down, that's practically a guarantee. I hope I'm wrong but there you are.
I think it's something of a misstatement, to use an ugly word. While he is talking about insertion of false data into hoop-by-hop responses I'm almost sure he means governments like Iran, Saudi Arabia and China rather than places like Syira (certainly weak right now) than free and democratic countries like the U.S. I think he's using "strong" as in well established "system" rather than one that is under attack of some kind or other and may change so that designers of DNSSEC may be reluctant to take what they want into account.
The United States would, obviously, count as strong here though one might quibble about how strong or representative it is.
Of course, let's not forget things that were never patentable until recently say software, business process, medications and others that serve no particular purpose but to make the end product more expensive rather than less so.
I'm not sure the software industry as a whole ever wanted software patents, a few greedy outfits who thought they had a business process worth selling weren't happy with copyright so talked some judge into making a ruling that made business processes patentable (essentially put paperclip A on paper stack b and place on desk C) and big Pharma got into the act by saying they'd go bust without pharmaceutical patents lasting well into the fifth milenia from now. Oh, and eternally renewable for making them a different colour or using white sugar instead of brown in the formulation which made no difference at all to the drug's efficacy or lack thereof.
Yes, the patent system, like copyright, is broken. Only worse. Patents were meant to reveal not hide behind. They were meant to lessen the number of business secrets which really hasn't happened given that it's a crime to "thieve" one. And, like copyright, they were intended to be for short periods not millennial in length. (For all practical purposes.) They were meant to accelerate invention not impeded it and to get products to market rather than keep them off.
Patent inspectors do need to be qualified for their work so that we'd have never ended up with patents on things like one click purchasing on the Internet and other delights the link illustrates. Instead of being paid by how many they approve and rubber stamp.
Just to remind the inevitable AC who will come by to try to remind us all that the inventor/author does need to get an income from their work both copyright and patents were created to provide an incentive to create. Not a lifetime income from those creations. They had a short life with the idea to get the author/inventor back out there to create some more not eternally live off the spoils. Or worse some faceless corporation to live off the spoils eternally or trolling companies to be formed to sue others who come up with something ever so vaguely resembling what they purchased a patent on from the inventor or the copyright on from the author. (Neither of which were practical/good enough to generate any income of their own, mind.) And have a bought and paid for court in East Texas.
(I'd say /end rant but that wouldn't be true. This will come up again, and again and again.)
While it's not just the US government that favours large business in "make work" programs there does seem to be a different effect up here in Canada.
By a couple of news reports there have been more start ups per capita in Canada last year than in the United States. On way of measuring it has been single owner proprietorships, partnerships and limited liability company's. For whatever reason, Canadians seem to be becoming more entrepreneurial than Americans are. All this despite our "high" taxation as well as near endless paperwork according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. A lobby group, of course.
One reason that could be is that it's an order of magnitude harder to file a frivolous lawsuit up here and the pentalies for doing so are more than in the States.
I'm going to be a little bit against the trend here. Beyond email and perhaps how to use Google to find things, perhaps things the electorate would rather they not waste time on and maybe one or two sites like their own these people are totally clueless about the Internet and the Web. As bad, or worse, just exactly what copyright and patent law were originally all about now that they've twisted both out of all recognition..
And, yeah, you bet Lamar Smith has a soft landing awaiting in the unlikely event he loses the next election (miracles do occur don't they?) though probably not in the so-called copyright industry. More likely someone fairly close to them. A couple of degrees of separation for a couple of years till they become easier to slip in the way Chris Dodd has been.
This has always been about a fundamental change in the supply line to retail. How much control the **AA's will have left and how much retail demand will determine what is released, where and when.
It's never, ever been about the creator or the artist it's been about the labels and studios and how much control they have.
As for the unintended consequences of the too broad definitions in the legislation as the "copyright industry" wrote it what's to say that they are unintended? Even if the politicians are paid to think otherwise.
Welcome back Dajaz1 and thanks for your statement. Now to sit back and wait for the trolls.
I agree that it's an unfortunate choice of words though it does essentially sum it up as does "information wants to be free".
The Internet, mostly the Web, makes it relatively easy to find things now so in the sense that it's findable people do what the Internet enables them to do, or, "wants them to do". It's splitting hairs, I know, but in this sense the hair needs splitting.
His idea that if mainstream MPAA/RIAA members themselves adapted to the Internet reality that piracy would dimish is, at least, partly borne out in his study that shows where Netflix exists the bigger avenues (the bittorrent protocol) sees usage decrease. Even if what Netflix does is similar to how Bittorrent operates.
In both cases "information" or "data" is exchanged freely by groups even if in one case it's sometimes "piracy" in the other sense "legitimately paid for" information.
Both inexorably push towards free. Not free as in unpaid for but freedom in exchange AT A REASONABLE PRICE which may not be the price the copyright owners want to charge for it.
Perhaps a bazaar where buyer and seller dicker and agree, in the end on a price. In one sense that happens now when a seller puts a price on a product and it doesn't move, no matter its advantages, then reduces the price and suddenly it sells. The seller makes up in volume what they've lost in per unit profit.
In that sense, the price, that bit of information is free and, because of the Web and the ease in finding out, it spreads rapidly among those interested in the product.
The point Price is making is that content owners haven't adapted quickly enough to reduce the attraction of piracy. To that he adds that bills like SOPA and PIPA won't answer the problem. Piracy will go on. (And it will) Unless the content industry adapts. That is something they show no sign of wanting to do. Sad, really cause they could do it tomorrow and makes tons on money doing it.
And is Price still working for NBC/Universal? I don't know. I'm not sure he does. I'm not sure he cares all that much because they haven't paid attention to what his research has found, except for the parts they wanted it to find, not the solutions to it.
On the post: Don't Be Fooled: Leahy Is NOT Removing DNS Blocking Provisions, Merely Delaying Them
It's not just legislators in the United States that play this game. We've had it in Canada for decades in that something is passed, then controversial stuff is delayed for further study. Most often by a group of MPs and Senators belonging to the party supporting the bill in the overwhelming majority who tour the country to hear opinions and then suddenly find the need to go overseas to study how other countries do it. Say Australian or New Zealand in the middle of the Canadian winter.
Now if you REALLY want to delay something, create a Royal Commission on (FIT SUBJECT HERE). They can go on for years, sometimes decades! Along with more need to visit countries in winter who are in summer so that they can study something, just about anything, there.
While all this is going on bit by sneaky bit stuff like blocking one or two then more and more sites would take place, all for study, don't you know, to see just what the actual affect would be on the internet under real conditions. You know, just one or two sites here and there to see if the redirects and that kinda stuff does seem to DNSSEC like a "man in the middle" attack. After all, real data is needed, don't you know.
And before you know it..........
.............well, you know it don't you?
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a*hole trying to hide the dirt now. robots.txt archive block just went live
On the post: Lamar Smith Caught Infringing On Photographer's Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: CreativeAmerica Denies Copying; Inadvertently Shows Why SOPA/PIPA Are Dangerous
Re:
But censorship is still censorship regardless of who it applies to.
We'll wait to see how long it is before US registered sites are targeted, shall we?
On the post: Largest Artist Community Group Comes Out Against SOPA & PIPA
Re:
I guess, as they're an advocacy group you COULD say they're some kind of loose union though they don't seem to advocate strikes, wage negotiations and other things unions do but I guess you COULD if you stretch it.
I have no doubt that they'll get some members as a result of taking that stand, they do stand to lose others of course so as an organizing tool it's probably not a great one.
What they are saying is that a free and open Internet is vital to artists of all kinds and this solution to piracy, including the ones they cite, are just the wrong way to go about this. As in messing with the DNS system isn't the way to keep the Internet free and open. And they're right.
As for what you posted immediately after this it makes little or no sense. Is it Mike you're referring to or the site the story is talking about? Or is it about anything at all?
On the post: Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?
Re:
Maybe three in a chat room or leet speak but a forum isn't either so you're already at a C- in your post and it's only the end of the first line!
Those who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones particularly when you tossed the stone though your own window before it landed here.
On the post: Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?
Re: Re:
Thus far they haven't. Filling campaign fodders doesn't count as a reasoned argument. Nor does it count as open and public discussion.
In fact, PIPA does have a bit of a backroom stench to it or Leahy wouldn't be bringing in a "managers amendment" to try to settle down some of the groups he mentioned. He'd have heard from them BEFORE the bill ever hit the Senate floor.
To pretend that it can all be solved by putting off the DNS nonsense until it's studied, likely by the same people how studied it to come up with the nonsense to start with, before it's quietly implemented. Oh, joy!
Actually, the power they received comes from both the people and the US Constitution not from those who fill their election coffers. It's long past time they remembered that.
On the post: Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?
Re: Dems 4 the People
On the post: Senator Leahy Hopes To Rush Through PIPA By Promising To Study DNS Blocking... Later?!?
Re: Re: Kill the bills
Still poop though I doubt the results of the episode are still around.
On the post: Las Vegas Review-Journal Publishes CEA OpEd Calling Out Senator Harry Reid Killing Innovation By Supporting PIPA
I did notice that the comments section following the article has already been trolled by the Copyright Alliance, so the astroturf didn't take all that long to land there. As did some of the silly arguments they use.
The op-ed makes sense, the response from the Copyright Alliance doesn't hold water on the other hand as it doesn't examine the problem but simply says it's ok to break the Internet to protect the copyrights held by the Entrainment and publishing industries. All for the artists. Of course.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains, In Great Detail, Why You Don't Want 'Policy Analysts' Determining DNS Rules
Any way you look at it technically it can't be done the way SOPA/PIPA supporters want it to be done.
All to legislate a potential future, not a real one, for two failing entertainment sectors. Both failing at their own hand, I might add. (Again. ;-))
As for governments institutionalizing lying, even in the west, I'm afraid that happened decades ago. You know, things like domino theories and all that stuff, weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that were never found once the troops landed and so on.
So why not now? Why not try to poison DNS so that it lies too. That way governments think they have control over something they've had no control of to now.
On the post: Reddit Plans To Black Out Site For A Day To Protest SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re:
A complete shutdown of Google would be an example of spiting your face because, depending on how Reddit does its shutdown that may send casual users skittering off to Google to find out why, for how long and so on.
Facebook won't shut down, that's practically a guarantee. I hope I'm wrong but there you are.
On the post: Reddit Plans To Black Out Site For A Day To Protest SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Coordination
After all we know that all news from everywhere belongs to AP even before it's polished up and stuck in a newscast or newspaper right? ;-)
On the post: Comcast -- Owner Of NBC Universal -- Admits That DNS Redirects Are Incompatible With DNSSEC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The United States would, obviously, count as strong here though one might quibble about how strong or representative it is.
On the post: Infographic Showing The Problem With Patents
Re: Patents
You do realize, don't you that that means revamping the entire way the USPTO does business, don't you?
I'd add making it a capital crime to resort to the East Texas district court which seems to have some very funny ideas about things like patents. ;-)
On the post: Infographic Showing The Problem With Patents
I'm not sure the software industry as a whole ever wanted software patents, a few greedy outfits who thought they had a business process worth selling weren't happy with copyright so talked some judge into making a ruling that made business processes patentable (essentially put paperclip A on paper stack b and place on desk C) and big Pharma got into the act by saying they'd go bust without pharmaceutical patents lasting well into the fifth milenia from now. Oh, and eternally renewable for making them a different colour or using white sugar instead of brown in the formulation which made no difference at all to the drug's efficacy or lack thereof.
Yes, the patent system, like copyright, is broken. Only worse. Patents were meant to reveal not hide behind. They were meant to lessen the number of business secrets which really hasn't happened given that it's a crime to "thieve" one. And, like copyright, they were intended to be for short periods not millennial in length. (For all practical purposes.) They were meant to accelerate invention not impeded it and to get products to market rather than keep them off.
Patent inspectors do need to be qualified for their work so that we'd have never ended up with patents on things like one click purchasing on the Internet and other delights the link illustrates. Instead of being paid by how many they approve and rubber stamp.
Just to remind the inevitable AC who will come by to try to remind us all that the inventor/author does need to get an income from their work both copyright and patents were created to provide an incentive to create. Not a lifetime income from those creations. They had a short life with the idea to get the author/inventor back out there to create some more not eternally live off the spoils. Or worse some faceless corporation to live off the spoils eternally or trolling companies to be formed to sue others who come up with something ever so vaguely resembling what they purchased a patent on from the inventor or the copyright on from the author. (Neither of which were practical/good enough to generate any income of their own, mind.) And have a bought and paid for court in East Texas.
(I'd say /end rant but that wouldn't be true. This will come up again, and again and again.)
On the post: Is America Losing Its Startup Edge?
By a couple of news reports there have been more start ups per capita in Canada last year than in the United States. On way of measuring it has been single owner proprietorships, partnerships and limited liability company's. For whatever reason, Canadians seem to be becoming more entrepreneurial than Americans are. All this despite our "high" taxation as well as near endless paperwork according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. A lobby group, of course.
One reason that could be is that it's an order of magnitude harder to file a frivolous lawsuit up here and the pentalies for doing so are more than in the States.
On the post: Website Censored By Feds Takes Up Lamar Smith's Challenge: Here's Your 'Hypothetical'
And, yeah, you bet Lamar Smith has a soft landing awaiting in the unlikely event he loses the next election (miracles do occur don't they?) though probably not in the so-called copyright industry. More likely someone fairly close to them. A couple of degrees of separation for a couple of years till they become easier to slip in the way Chris Dodd has been.
This has always been about a fundamental change in the supply line to retail. How much control the **AA's will have left and how much retail demand will determine what is released, where and when.
It's never, ever been about the creator or the artist it's been about the labels and studios and how much control they have.
As for the unintended consequences of the too broad definitions in the legislation as the "copyright industry" wrote it what's to say that they are unintended? Even if the politicians are paid to think otherwise.
Welcome back Dajaz1 and thanks for your statement. Now to sit back and wait for the trolls.
On the post: CreativeAmerica Copies Content To Support Anti-Copying Bills
If course, everything Public Knowledge writes in the public domain, right? Right? Hey someone answer us!
On the post: NBC Universal's Own Preferred Researcher For 'Anti-Piracy' Stats Comes Out Against SOPA/PIPA
Re:
The Internet, mostly the Web, makes it relatively easy to find things now so in the sense that it's findable people do what the Internet enables them to do, or, "wants them to do". It's splitting hairs, I know, but in this sense the hair needs splitting.
His idea that if mainstream MPAA/RIAA members themselves adapted to the Internet reality that piracy would dimish is, at least, partly borne out in his study that shows where Netflix exists the bigger avenues (the bittorrent protocol) sees usage decrease. Even if what Netflix does is similar to how Bittorrent operates.
In both cases "information" or "data" is exchanged freely by groups even if in one case it's sometimes "piracy" in the other sense "legitimately paid for" information.
Both inexorably push towards free. Not free as in unpaid for but freedom in exchange AT A REASONABLE PRICE which may not be the price the copyright owners want to charge for it.
Perhaps a bazaar where buyer and seller dicker and agree, in the end on a price. In one sense that happens now when a seller puts a price on a product and it doesn't move, no matter its advantages, then reduces the price and suddenly it sells. The seller makes up in volume what they've lost in per unit profit.
In that sense, the price, that bit of information is free and, because of the Web and the ease in finding out, it spreads rapidly among those interested in the product.
The point Price is making is that content owners haven't adapted quickly enough to reduce the attraction of piracy. To that he adds that bills like SOPA and PIPA won't answer the problem. Piracy will go on. (And it will) Unless the content industry adapts. That is something they show no sign of wanting to do. Sad, really cause they could do it tomorrow and makes tons on money doing it.
And is Price still working for NBC/Universal? I don't know. I'm not sure he does. I'm not sure he cares all that much because they haven't paid attention to what his research has found, except for the parts they wanted it to find, not the solutions to it.
Next >>