If the FBI notified every one who was a target for malware and got them fixes, the malware wouldn't spread so much, and they would have fewer cases to investigate. Protecting their patch, and therefore jobs, is the first thing they think of when the awaken, and the last thing they think of when going to sleep. In between it's all about how to screw over the public.
...of all the things they are getting away with in the EU right now and are feeling their way into having a comparable relationship with their constituents. Finding new ways to degrade the Constitution is like a sport to them. They keep competing on stupid rather than sly, but don't care too much as either seems to be working.
Burning cars in the street, maybe not, but revolt, yes. At the very least there is much more interaction between people and cultures now than when the North Korean dictatorship evolved (even with China's great firewall, I bet there are leaks, and Russia's attempt at cutting itself off from the Internet will have the same capacity to withhold outside information as a colander does to contain water, though it may take some time for those evolution's to take place).
I have no insight as to the timing, though I have some doubts that it will happen within the span of what remains of my lifetime.
Upon reading just the headline I wondered how there might be any 'Terrorist Content' posted after the filters take down all 'user generated content' as being previously copyrighted by someone else. Then I thought about which of the legacy copyright conglomerates would own up to owning 'Terrorist Content'. Then I remembered that they wouldn't know if they owned the content or not as anything user generated will be blocked due to the filters trying to do a 'good job'. Then I though about all the movie and TV shows that contain 'Terrorist Depictions' and how those might be confused with 'Terrorist Content'.
After reading the article I am consumed with notions about 'something must be done' whether that something would actually do anything to solve the issue at hand or not. And it's the 'Civil Liberties' committee that did this. What is it about civil liberties that they don't get? Unless, controlling civil liberties to better enable the authoritarian state is their actual goal.
At some point the citizens of the world are going to get really pissed. I would not want to be an elected or appointed part of any government when that happens, as I wouldn't give two grains of sand for any of their futures. Bite the hand that feeds you enough times, you won't get fed anymore. And that hand, might get bitten off.
I think the ISP's should forward the letters, but to the Canadian Parliament, maybe particularly to those who wrote the new law without penalties for the trolls. If their statement of the volume of copyright trolls violating the laws is correct, Parliament won't put up with it for long. Then, let the press know, so those in Parliament who would likely turn on the ISP's rather than the trolls, would be called out for ignoring the trolls ignoring the law.
Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
Let's see which of these categories you fit:
Cyberbullying and trolling, check
Extremest content and activity, check
Coercive behavior, check
Intimidation, check
Disinformation, check
Harassment and cyberstalking, check
Now, if Techdirt were in the UK, what would Mike have to do about you? Well, if I read the article correctly, he would have to do more than just hide your comments, he would have to remove them. And since you have little self control, let law enforcement know about you and give them whatever information he could to enable their enforcement action.
I think 'press' is just fine, but we might add something along the lines of 'irregardless of technology' and 'Making no law includes trying to define 'press'.
The only people that said it was impossible for law enforcement to operate, was law enforcement. And the reason they gave was that they could not abide by the premise that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. So, who is promoting anarchy?
The Constitution still exists, even as our courts degrade it. That is reversible.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
Letting the police act without the protections the Constitution provides is just not acceptable. If their actions are allowed to continue, there probably will be some anarchy. The problem will be, can we get all the anarchists to support the same goal.
I am wondering what categories of business this trademark was applied for? Then, I am wondering how the trademark was granted, as it sure seems to be a description of an action taking place on the track rather than some unique term of art that clearly identifies some product? What products does Dave Johnson sell? Right, calling races. If there was some competition for his product in the general marketplace, rather than just between racetracks, there might have been something to talk about, but racetracks are a fairly limited market and if the competition for Dave Johnson's talents was that fierce, I somehow feel that his 'owning' that line did not come into play.
Determining that it wasn't actually copyrighted, which might have been a claim if it had been, isn't difficult. Then again I bet it is a phrase that has been used hundreds, if not thousands of times by other track announcers, and for that reason wouldn't be copyrightable either.
So now I will state that it is my unequivocal opinion that Dave Johnson is a horses ass who is trying to make some money because the movies have more money than his announcers pay.
The value gap you define is akin to whatever package delivery system the brick and mortar folks used, mail, UPS, freight companies, etc.. They still had to get the movies to the theaters, or the DVD's to the store, or records, or books. That the Internet does those thing (for digital at least) cheaper is to their benefit, not harm. They haven't yet figured out how to capitalize on that as yet.
Search engines are like phone books, except they cover a lot more area. When one wanted to find the nearest record store, one could look it up in the phone book. The search engine I use doesn't have advertising, so blaming search engines for 'stealing' those advertising dollars is a misnomer. Have you ever heard of or used the 'Yellow Pages'? It's all ads, and none of that ad money goes to producers.
The reviewers you refer to don't work for entertainment producers, they tend to work for publications, newspapers, magazines, TV or cable or radio channels, and while they might be influencer's, the bigger one is word of mouth. When the legacy media companies force the take down of anyone mentioning one of their 'properties' on the Internet, they lose that word of mouth and don't even realize they are doing it to themselves.
You may be able to, in your own closed mind, justify any characterization, but that doesn't mean anyone in the real world is going to buy your reasoning. The rest of use use reality, logic and reason to build our views.
Which makes the rest of us wonder why courts have such a hard time understanding it. All the arguments about the Founders intent or some specious parsing of words, what they meant then vs what they mean now, and the other excuses to NOT abjure to the plain text meaning are what makes us plain folk so confused.
Which is also part of the 5th Amendment. So it is stated twice in the Constitution, but is irrelevant when the thieves with badges come along. Got it. I don't agree, but I got it.
The silos will continue to grow in numbers, but size will be limited because each silo has limited content choices feeding them. They will become tall, but not wide. Then, because their corporate masters demand increased profits, quarter after quarter, the rise in prices will become a reduction in subscribers. A cycle that those masters will not digest well.
Then someone will get smart and start combining silos, making them wider. A few will get together, and then a few others will get together to compete against the first combination. Then the above scenario will play itself out, all over again.
Then, those combination silos will consolidate, yet again, until there is only one silo left. That leaves us with what we have now, a single cable company providing service. The only difference will be that they don't necessarily own the cable running to your door (though they may be related to some degree with a different monopoly providing your internet connection in various markets). Of course, by this time, price sensitivity will be a real thing and I doubt that any of the combined silos will be able to demand anything like what the cable companies are asking for today. Not only will things be cheaper, but quality will go down, in terms of content, and possibly also in deliver quality (lower bandwidth).
The other choices, pirating as mentioned in the article as a potential competition, as well as the world may come to the realization that there are other forms of entertainment than video and go and invest time and money in those. Which leaves all this investment in the video entertainment business where?
The problem with the streaming option is that when the game developers decide that they have enough income, or that ongoing income isn't high enough, they shut down their servers and everyone loses, the subscribers all they have invested in a game they probably enjoy and would like to go on enjoying. If it is downloaded and installed on your system, without any DRM crap, you can continue to enjoy it even if the developers give up on the product.
I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but I am trying to figure out how the 14th Amendment might be in consideration, whereas the 5th Amendment seems more applicable:
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5
Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Of course in this instance, it sure seems as though the private property taken was not for public use, but for personal use...by the thieves.
"Congress never passed a law granting public employees this exception to Constitutional protections. This exception -- one that allows public servants to avoid being directly sued by the public whose rights they've violated -- was crafted by the Supreme Court."
Congress has the right and the responsibility to do something about this, yet they don't, and I suspect won't anytime in the near future. Such a shame that those elected to represent us...don't.
"While most of these marches were executed independently, the D.C. organizers quickly moved to unify them under shared guidelines and branding. They began recognizing local marches as official chapters and sending letters to unaffiliated groups asking them to drop the phrase “women’s march” from their name."
The unmitigated gaul of the 'D.C. organizers' to try and usurp the individualistic intentions of all those other women by 'recognizing' official chapters (how magnanimous) and disdaining others because they would not kowtow to their 'authority'. The cry for power and control is loud and clear. Why don't they try running for office? That is how everyone they protest against does it.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not against whatever it is they are protesting against, nor am I against them, but when power and control are more important to some subset of organizers than whatever their actual issues are, there is reason to suspect the intent of those organizers. And like fish, things tend to stink from the head first.
Didn't I read somewhere that there were like 1.5 million of these streams? Is it at all possible for anyone to find 1.5 million copies of something that might or might not have the same name, in an hour? I don't know what the technical machinations of 'taking something down' are, but even if it is a few keystrokes after navigating to the particular place, doing that 1.5 million times is going to take some time.
Is the deficit in Australia so big that it needs these kind of laws to support whatever their current tax scheme is?
On the post: FBI Cyber Crimes Division Not So Great About Passing Info To Victims Of Cyberattacks
Protecting the livelihood
If the FBI notified every one who was a target for malware and got them fixes, the malware wouldn't spread so much, and they would have fewer cases to investigate. Protecting their patch, and therefore jobs, is the first thing they think of when the awaken, and the last thing they think of when going to sleep. In between it's all about how to screw over the public.
On the post: Grandstanding GOP Senators Continue To Mislead About Social Media Bias, Demand A 'Fairness Doctrine' For The Internet
They're just jealous...
...of all the things they are getting away with in the EU right now and are feeling their way into having a comparable relationship with their constituents. Finding new ways to degrade the Constitution is like a sport to them. They keep competing on stupid rather than sly, but don't care too much as either seems to be working.
On the post: European Parliament Moves Forward With 'Terrorist Content' Regulation That Will Lead To Massive Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Then I read the article
Burning cars in the street, maybe not, but revolt, yes. At the very least there is much more interaction between people and cultures now than when the North Korean dictatorship evolved (even with China's great firewall, I bet there are leaks, and Russia's attempt at cutting itself off from the Internet will have the same capacity to withhold outside information as a colander does to contain water, though it may take some time for those evolution's to take place).
I have no insight as to the timing, though I have some doubts that it will happen within the span of what remains of my lifetime.
On the post: European Parliament Moves Forward With 'Terrorist Content' Regulation That Will Lead To Massive Internet Censorship
Then I read the article
Upon reading just the headline I wondered how there might be any 'Terrorist Content' posted after the filters take down all 'user generated content' as being previously copyrighted by someone else. Then I thought about which of the legacy copyright conglomerates would own up to owning 'Terrorist Content'. Then I remembered that they wouldn't know if they owned the content or not as anything user generated will be blocked due to the filters trying to do a 'good job'. Then I though about all the movie and TV shows that contain 'Terrorist Depictions' and how those might be confused with 'Terrorist Content'.
After reading the article I am consumed with notions about 'something must be done' whether that something would actually do anything to solve the issue at hand or not. And it's the 'Civil Liberties' committee that did this. What is it about civil liberties that they don't get? Unless, controlling civil liberties to better enable the authoritarian state is their actual goal.
At some point the citizens of the world are going to get really pissed. I would not want to be an elected or appointed part of any government when that happens, as I wouldn't give two grains of sand for any of their futures. Bite the hand that feeds you enough times, you won't get fed anymore. And that hand, might get bitten off.
On the post: Canadian ISPs Call For Standardization And Fines For Copyright Trolls Ignoring Changes To Copyright Law
The Right Destination
I think the ISP's should forward the letters, but to the Canadian Parliament, maybe particularly to those who wrote the new law without penalties for the trolls. If their statement of the volume of copyright trolls violating the laws is correct, Parliament won't put up with it for long. Then, let the press know, so those in Parliament who would likely turn on the ISP's rather than the trolls, would be called out for ignoring the trolls ignoring the law.
On the post: UK Now Proposes Ridiculous Plan To Fine Internet Companies For Vaguely Defined 'Harmful Content'
Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
Let's see which of these categories you fit:
Cyberbullying and trolling, check
Extremest content and activity, check
Coercive behavior, check
Intimidation, check
Disinformation, check
Now, if Techdirt were in the UK, what would Mike have to do about you? Well, if I read the article correctly, he would have to do more than just hide your comments, he would have to remove them. And since you have little self control, let law enforcement know about you and give them whatever information he could to enable their enforcement action.
How does that feel?
On the post: Legislator Irritated By A Journalist Decides State's Government Should Start Regulating Journalism
Re: Press = Mass Communication
I think 'press' is just fine, but we might add something along the lines of 'irregardless of technology' and 'Making no law includes trying to define 'press'.
On the post: Former Police Chief Says Conviction Requirement For Forfeitures Makes It Too Hard To Take Cash From People
Re: Re:
The only people that said it was impossible for law enforcement to operate, was law enforcement. And the reason they gave was that they could not abide by the premise that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. So, who is promoting anarchy?
The Constitution still exists, even as our courts degrade it. That is reversible.
Letting the police act without the protections the Constitution provides is just not acceptable. If their actions are allowed to continue, there probably will be some anarchy. The problem will be, can we get all the anarchists to support the same goal.
On the post: Horse Race Announcer Sues Over Bill Murray Film That Included His Trademarked Tagline
I confused it with car racing...erm...
I am wondering what categories of business this trademark was applied for? Then, I am wondering how the trademark was granted, as it sure seems to be a description of an action taking place on the track rather than some unique term of art that clearly identifies some product? What products does Dave Johnson sell? Right, calling races. If there was some competition for his product in the general marketplace, rather than just between racetracks, there might have been something to talk about, but racetracks are a fairly limited market and if the competition for Dave Johnson's talents was that fierce, I somehow feel that his 'owning' that line did not come into play.
Determining that it wasn't actually copyrighted, which might have been a claim if it had been, isn't difficult. Then again I bet it is a phrase that has been used hundreds, if not thousands of times by other track announcers, and for that reason wouldn't be copyrightable either.
So now I will state that it is my unequivocal opinion that Dave Johnson is a horses ass who is trying to make some money because the movies have more money than his announcers pay.
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Thriving, Almost Entirely Because Of The Internet
Re: Re:
The value gap you define is akin to whatever package delivery system the brick and mortar folks used, mail, UPS, freight companies, etc.. They still had to get the movies to the theaters, or the DVD's to the store, or records, or books. That the Internet does those thing (for digital at least) cheaper is to their benefit, not harm. They haven't yet figured out how to capitalize on that as yet.
Search engines are like phone books, except they cover a lot more area. When one wanted to find the nearest record store, one could look it up in the phone book. The search engine I use doesn't have advertising, so blaming search engines for 'stealing' those advertising dollars is a misnomer. Have you ever heard of or used the 'Yellow Pages'? It's all ads, and none of that ad money goes to producers.
The reviewers you refer to don't work for entertainment producers, they tend to work for publications, newspapers, magazines, TV or cable or radio channels, and while they might be influencer's, the bigger one is word of mouth. When the legacy media companies force the take down of anyone mentioning one of their 'properties' on the Internet, they lose that word of mouth and don't even realize they are doing it to themselves.
You may be able to, in your own closed mind, justify any characterization, but that doesn't mean anyone in the real world is going to buy your reasoning. The rest of use use reality, logic and reason to build our views.
On the post: Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re:
What addiction are you referring to? Watching content or advertising? Right, advertising is content, how will they distinguish? Oh, the horror!
On the post: Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2Many Food Choices
Quite the ego you have there. Can you tell us about how you portion it?
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens
Re: Re: Where did law come from?
Which makes the rest of us wonder why courts have such a hard time understanding it. All the arguments about the Founders intent or some specious parsing of words, what they meant then vs what they mean now, and the other excuses to NOT abjure to the plain text meaning are what makes us plain folk so confused.
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens
Re: Re: Where did that come from?
Which is also part of the 5th Amendment. So it is stated twice in the Constitution, but is irrelevant when the thieves with badges come along. Got it. I don't agree, but I got it.
On the post: Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy
Silos are like weeds
The silos will continue to grow in numbers, but size will be limited because each silo has limited content choices feeding them. They will become tall, but not wide. Then, because their corporate masters demand increased profits, quarter after quarter, the rise in prices will become a reduction in subscribers. A cycle that those masters will not digest well.
Then someone will get smart and start combining silos, making them wider. A few will get together, and then a few others will get together to compete against the first combination. Then the above scenario will play itself out, all over again.
Then, those combination silos will consolidate, yet again, until there is only one silo left. That leaves us with what we have now, a single cable company providing service. The only difference will be that they don't necessarily own the cable running to your door (though they may be related to some degree with a different monopoly providing your internet connection in various markets). Of course, by this time, price sensitivity will be a real thing and I doubt that any of the combined silos will be able to demand anything like what the cable companies are asking for today. Not only will things be cheaper, but quality will go down, in terms of content, and possibly also in deliver quality (lower bandwidth).
The other choices, pirating as mentioned in the article as a potential competition, as well as the world may come to the realization that there are other forms of entertainment than video and go and invest time and money in those. Which leaves all this investment in the video entertainment business where?
On the post: Anti-Piracy Outfit MUSO Comes Out Against The Use Of DRM
Re: Re: Baby steps
The problem with the streaming option is that when the game developers decide that they have enough income, or that ongoing income isn't high enough, they shut down their servers and everyone loses, the subscribers all they have invested in a game they probably enjoy and would like to go on enjoying. If it is downloaded and installed on your system, without any DRM crap, you can continue to enjoy it even if the developers give up on the product.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Outfit MUSO Comes Out Against The Use Of DRM
Just what are they trying to fix?
Hmm. Did MUSO get this right, but for the wrong reasons?
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens
Where did that come from?
I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but I am trying to figure out how the 14th Amendment might be in consideration, whereas the 5th Amendment seems more applicable:
Of course in this instance, it sure seems as though the private property taken was not for public use, but for personal use...by the thieves.
Congress has the right and the responsibility to do something about this, yet they don't, and I suspect won't anytime in the near future. Such a shame that those elected to represent us...don't.
On the post: Women's March Inc. Quietly Abandons Its Attempt To Trademark 'Women's March'
What was that protest about, again?
The unmitigated gaul of the 'D.C. organizers' to try and usurp the individualistic intentions of all those other women by 'recognizing' official chapters (how magnanimous) and disdaining others because they would not kowtow to their 'authority'. The cry for power and control is loud and clear. Why don't they try running for office? That is how everyone they protest against does it.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not against whatever it is they are protesting against, nor am I against them, but when power and control are more important to some subset of organizers than whatever their actual issues are, there is reason to suspect the intent of those organizers. And like fish, things tend to stink from the head first.
On the post: Aussie Senate Rushes Thru Bill That Would Fine Social Media Companies For Not Taking Down 'Abhorrent' Content Fast Enough
An hour?
Didn't I read somewhere that there were like 1.5 million of these streams? Is it at all possible for anyone to find 1.5 million copies of something that might or might not have the same name, in an hour? I don't know what the technical machinations of 'taking something down' are, but even if it is a few keystrokes after navigating to the particular place, doing that 1.5 million times is going to take some time.
Is the deficit in Australia so big that it needs these kind of laws to support whatever their current tax scheme is?
Next >>