Exploits come from bugs, having access to source allows you to find bugs. Or workarounds.
The other side of that coin is that having access to the source also allow you to discover the nefarious "features" that a self-serving corporation might put into their proprietary code.
I know you are about to explain to me how Linux can do it, but I'm an Enterprise Architect and you aren't, and you're wrong.
It is possible though - just ask the folks over at Ernie Ball.
But I am curious why you claim that open source couldn't replace MS in the enterprise. What's missing?
...and also to make sure that customers don't get ripped off.
If the fare is agreed upon prior to scheduling the ride, why is this needed?
Most cities also regulate the cars that are used to make sure that they are safe and roadworthy. They also have license numbers so that if you have a problem you know who to complain about.
Both if these issues are dealt with by means of instantaneous customer feedback. Too many bad reviews and you're no longer a driver.
The taxi industry hasn't always kept up with the times in terms of technology. That's something that they should work on.
That's true. But that still doesn't mean they get to pass laws and regulate against competitors who are up with the times in terms of technology.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with governments regulating business to make sure that it functions in the public interest.
Yes, but when such regulation becomes regulatory capture, then that's a problem.
Nor that consumers should have any right to dispute over charges, or pay fair and equitable rates.
How is Uber not doing this? Isn't the price agreed upon beforehand?
And what do you mean by equitable rates? Equitable with existing cabs services? Why should the consumer give a shit about that if they are satisfied with the price and service they are receiving and agreed to?
"The 'you bought it, you own it' principle is an extreme digital view and I don’t think it will get much traction," he said"
Hmmm. I thought Chris Dodd already set Congress straight on this issue after the SOPA vote when he realized that he didn't actually "own" the Congresspeople he "bought".
Yes, using the DMCA to suppress uncopyrightable legal notices wouldn't be an abuse at all.
Not only that, but the notices themselves are on shaky ground as to if they are even copyrightable. Even more so for automated DMCA takedown notices since there's zero creative elements in those.
...where ChillingEffects makes wild accusations like "Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users."
How is that a "wild accusation" when they actually have that anecdotal evidence on display at their site?
A couple of points because Copyright applies to an abstract entity.
Yes. I'm just sorta spitballing here and just wondering if something like a whitelist system would even work.
1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
I'm not sure, really. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids maybe?
2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?
3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.
My thought would be that any takedown would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.
Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my comments. I have not stated that burdens be shifted form rights holders to service providers.
Fair enough. But there are many pushing that exact argument and I don't quite understand the logic.
What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.
I'm not convinced it's unjust myself. First, the rights holders are the ones benefiting from the exclusivity that copyright grants. Why shouldn't they shoulder the majority of the burden? That's the question I'd like answered.
Second, you seem to be implying that your example shows that our current system can be unfair to the rights holders. Perhaps you're right. But it's because it's a reactionary game of wac-a-mole. Why not attacking the problem from the opposite way with a whitelist type of system?
Below is an example of a situation that underlies in part my comment that imposing all burdens on a rights holder can manifestly be unfair...
Ok. But highlighting inadequacies in the current system still doesn't prove that the burden needs to be laid upon the service providers who rely on the DMCA safe harbors.
If you want really want a semblance of fairness, here are my suggestions:
- Return copyright back to "opt-in". If you value your work enough to want the protections of copyright, take 5 minutes to register it.
- Use a sliding scale fee for copyright registration. Free at first, but increasing amounts for renewals. This would allow works to begin to fall into the Public Domain like they should. This would also offset the cost of creating a whitelist database in my next bullet.
- Create a central "copyright whitelist" that is constantly updated with information from the rights holders as to copyright status, licensing schemes and approved uses.
- Keep the safe harbors for service providers with the stipulation that they keep filtering and removing unauthorized content that isn't on the whitelist. Anything that isn't registered on the whitelist is considered unprotected.
A frequent submitter of DMCA notices submitted a DMCA notice seeking removal of a screenshot of an online discussion criticizing him for submitting overreaching DMCA notices.
Yeah. Not gonna happen. I'm not giving some anonymous moron on the internet with obvious sociopathic tendencies my info. I was born at night, but not last night.
But, I will give you a hint - the motto for the area I live is: "Where the weak are killed and eaten."
On the post: Kudos: Microsoft Changes Policy, Promises Not To Inspect Customers' Content
Re: Re: Re: Recheck facts
The other side of that coin is that having access to the source also allow you to discover the nefarious "features" that a self-serving corporation might put into their proprietary code.
I know you are about to explain to me how Linux can do it, but I'm an Enterprise Architect and you aren't, and you're wrong.
It is possible though - just ask the folks over at Ernie Ball.
But I am curious why you claim that open source couldn't replace MS in the enterprise. What's missing?
On the post: Mike Rogers Says Snowden's To Blame For Russian's Aggressive Actions Against Ukraine
Re: What a bunch of baloney
"Snowden was stranded in Russia because he is a spy and the fact he was stranded in Russia proves he is a spy."
On the post: Corruption Index Indicator: Cities That Ban Ride Sharing To Protect Taxi Incumbents
Re: This ain't ride sharing
That sounds like regulatory capture to me.
...and also to make sure that customers don't get ripped off.
If the fare is agreed upon prior to scheduling the ride, why is this needed?
Most cities also regulate the cars that are used to make sure that they are safe and roadworthy. They also have license numbers so that if you have a problem you know who to complain about.
Both if these issues are dealt with by means of instantaneous customer feedback. Too many bad reviews and you're no longer a driver.
The taxi industry hasn't always kept up with the times in terms of technology. That's something that they should work on.
That's true. But that still doesn't mean they get to pass laws and regulate against competitors who are up with the times in terms of technology.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with governments regulating business to make sure that it functions in the public interest.
Yes, but when such regulation becomes regulatory capture, then that's a problem.
On the post: Corruption Index Indicator: Cities That Ban Ride Sharing To Protect Taxi Incumbents
Re: Uber Price Gouging
That's kind of a silly analogy really. Grocery stores are selling merchandise, not a service.
But a grocery store *could* offer a faster VIP checkout lane for extra money, if they wanted to, and there wouldn't be any problem with that, right?
Also, grocery stores DO increase prices on products based on high demand.
On the post: Corruption Index Indicator: Cities That Ban Ride Sharing To Protect Taxi Incumbents
Re: Really still not "ride sharing".
How is Uber not doing this? Isn't the price agreed upon beforehand?
And what do you mean by equitable rates? Equitable with existing cabs services? Why should the consumer give a shit about that if they are satisfied with the price and service they are receiving and agreed to?
On the post: Rep. Nadler Claims 'You Bought It, You Own It' Is An 'Extreme Digital View'
Hmmm. I thought Chris Dodd already set Congress straight on this issue after the SOPA vote when he realized that he didn't actually "own" the Congresspeople he "bought".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-pol iticians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
On the post: Bogus Comparison Between Detroit In 1990 And Silicon Valley In 2012
Re: Why?
Yeah, me too.
As an aside, I stumbled across this in the Urban Dictionary and it made me chuckle (even with all the typos):
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trichordist
On the post: Town Built Around No WiFi/Radio Waves Rules Is Right Next To NSA Snoop Center
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it's an Amish ghost?
On the post: Town Built Around No WiFi/Radio Waves Rules Is Right Next To NSA Snoop Center
Re: It's time to make money!
The tigers tend to get really angry when you transform their signals.
On the post: Former NSA Official Thinks A Blog Containing Nothing But His Own Tweets Is 'Defamatory'
Re: Re: brilliance
If you feel the need to keep reiterating how smart you are when in a debate, you have already lost that debate.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Attacks ChillingEffects.org As 'Repugnant,' Wants DMCA System With No Public Accountability
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Not only that, but the notices themselves are on shaky ground as to if they are even copyrightable. Even more so for automated DMCA takedown notices since there's zero creative elements in those.
Mike made this argument back in 2011:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/13530413008/is-it-copyright-infringement-to-pass-dmca -notice-to-chillingeffects.shtml
On the post: Copyright Alliance Attacks ChillingEffects.org As 'Repugnant,' Wants DMCA System With No Public Accountability
Re:
How is that a "wild accusation" when they actually have that anecdotal evidence on display at their site?
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. I'm just sorta spitballing here and just wondering if something like a whitelist system would even work.
1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
I'm not sure, really. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids maybe?
2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?
3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.
My thought would be that any takedown would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. But there are many pushing that exact argument and I don't quite understand the logic.
What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.
I'm not convinced it's unjust myself. First, the rights holders are the ones benefiting from the exclusivity that copyright grants. Why shouldn't they shoulder the majority of the burden? That's the question I'd like answered.
Second, you seem to be implying that your example shows that our current system can be unfair to the rights holders. Perhaps you're right. But it's because it's a reactionary game of wac-a-mole. Why not attacking the problem from the opposite way with a whitelist type of system?
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe a notification prior to takedown where the supposed infringer has an opportunity to declare their belief that their usage is Fair Use.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. But highlighting inadequacies in the current system still doesn't prove that the burden needs to be laid upon the service providers who rely on the DMCA safe harbors.
If you want really want a semblance of fairness, here are my suggestions:
- Return copyright back to "opt-in". If you value your work enough to want the protections of copyright, take 5 minutes to register it.
- Use a sliding scale fee for copyright registration. Free at first, but increasing amounts for renewals. This would allow works to begin to fall into the Public Domain like they should. This would also offset the cost of creating a whitelist database in my next bullet.
- Create a central "copyright whitelist" that is constantly updated with information from the rights holders as to copyright status, licensing schemes and approved uses.
- Keep the safe harbors for service providers with the stipulation that they keep filtering and removing unauthorized content that isn't on the whitelist. Anything that isn't registered on the whitelist is considered unprotected.
On the post: If We're Going To Change DMCA's 'Notice & Takedown,' Let's Focus On How Widely It's Abused
That is so meta.
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Wants ICANN To Block '.Sucks' TLDs
Re: Vaccum cleaners
PS: I gave you funny vote for the double entendre.
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Wants ICANN To Block '.Sucks' TLDs
Re: Vaccum cleaners
Yeah, that was my first thought too.
I was thinking that Electrolux would be in the forefront to get a .sucks TLD so they could revamp their "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux" campaign.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. Not gonna happen. I'm not giving some anonymous moron on the internet with obvious sociopathic tendencies my info. I was born at night, but not last night.
But, I will give you a hint - the motto for the area I live is: "Where the weak are killed and eaten."
Next >>