Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 6:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Civil lawsuits are different entirely than criminal complaints. Plea bargaining is different than settling a lawsuit between parties.
Of course they're different - I never said they were the same. You're the one making completely stupid and unsupportable comment that once a crime is reported, nothing can stop it being investigated and prosecuted. My statement was meant to be completely absurd because yours was.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully and said "Once one party engages the justice system, they can't back out until a verdict comes down." That's still absurd without getting caught up in the difference between civil and criminal law. We know its absurd because the police and DAs drop investigations, cases, and charges every single day.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 2:50pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realize how weak that sounds, right?
Read the indictment. On every single section in the "Means of Committing Offenses" the indictment is very clear on what was happening. On (specific) date at (specific) time using (specific brand) laptop Swartz did (specific) act.
Then it gets down to the last one, and it reads like: "Oh, by-the-way, he was gonna upload these to some filesharing site."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 2:31pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kind of hard after that to unring the bell and say, "Never mind".
So you're saying that once one party initiates a lawsuit, they must see it through to the bitter end until a guilty/not guilty verdict is handed down? That they can't decide that there wasn't a problem, nor can they decide to settle for a lesser charge/amount?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 7:56am
Re:
You people are missing the point, it may not even put a dent in the hacking community at all, but it sends a message that they might not get them all but the will get whom they can.
This in time will make a difference, and if you don't believe that the technology exists to track even those that are using different means to protect themselves, then I feel real sorry for the doubters.
Yes, this same strategy is working so well for fighting P2P filesharing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 6:49am
Re: I call bullshit.
Agree. As soon as I saw this on Ars, I said the same thing. Just another headline grabbing article about the evils of technology when the data doesn't support the conclusion.
The report also notes that people have an easier time remembering where to find certain info than they do remembering the info itself.
I remember going through school - mostly before the Internet. The way I studied then, and still remember things now is no different. Someone asks me a question, the first thing I think of is where the information is, whether its the page of a textbook or a webpage. I then visualize the page, and have the answer.
Sure I'll use Google (or search my email archive, or open the webpage or document) to confirm I'm correct. And sure, I'll search Google for new information I don't already have.
If the last 300 years of modern science hasn't rewired our prehistoric-evolved brains, then the last 15 years of the Internet sure as hell has not.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:47pm
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you have a website doesn't make it a technical solution. When I see the words "technical solution" coming from the mouth of an MPAA spokesman, my brain interprets that to "make us something so we don't have to do anything different that still makes us oodles of money."
The idea is interesting, and I definitely would consider it one of the many economic solutions that exist.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:11pm
Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to tell me. I just got off a conference call where my group got bitched at for not having a solution to people forgetting their passwords - despite the fact we have about six ways for a user to reset their password once they've forgotten it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am
Re:
I actually have an issue with that part of statement. Here's why:
The "technology community" has already given you a solution. Adapt your business model to the new reality of today instead of trying to turn the clock back to 20 years ago.
Don't ask me for a "technical solution" to a problem that is not a technical problem. If you bring me a computer with a burnt out PSU or a cracked motherboard, don't ask me for a software fix - it's a hardware problem. Likewise, don't ask me for a technical solution to an economic (business model) problem.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:00am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, how DO you reconcile your demands that
In the same way that electrical companies metering electricity chokes demand for electricity.
As you stated, here's where things are different:
-Electrical companies are completely upfront about how much they charge per unit
-The marginal cost of electricity is much different than the marginal cost of bandwidth
-There's a real-time meter on your house that measures the electricity used that you can look at that is required by law to be accurate.
-Everywhere that I've lived at least, electrical companies cannot arbitrarily raise their rates or set caps
I'm against the idea of bandwidth caps because they are poorly implemented, unfair to certain situations, the limits are unreasonable or arbitrary, and the companies have a clear conflict of interest.
I see 2 fair and reasonable options. Neither of which we are remotely close to in the US. Both of these are easily possible with current technology.
1) Real competition in the broadband market. All (or most) users have multiple choices for a provider, and those providers have different rates, policies, services.
2) Broadband as a utility, just like electricity or water. Rates in which the public has input into and reflect the reality of what it actually costs. Rates which go down over time as technology improves. Real-time accurate meters that can be independently verified.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, That'll Work
sigh
So what happens when there's no more gold to be dug out of the ground? No more money can enter the economy.
So say I'm an entrepreneur. I want to start a small business, but I need some capital to do so. If no one can lend me money, my business doesn't get started. People I would have hired don't get jobs. Stuff I would have purchased doesn't get bought, so the companies selling/making it don't get paid, and can't pay their workers.
Not all debt is bad debt.
I would not have the good job I have now if I hadn't gone to college. I had to get a loan to do so. Somewhere around $35k for that, but I get paid double that per year now. Getting to my job would be difficult without the car I bought - again with a loan (FYI, fully paid off in 3 years). I live within my means, have savings, have a very good start on retirement investments. When properly managed, debt can be a good thing.
Fact: The Great Depression while western economies were on the gold standard.
Fact: Most economists agreed that coming off the gold standard is what helped get us out of the Great Depression.
Fact: No serious economists think going back onto the gold standard is a good thing or even remotely possible.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:17pm
Obvious consequence
This may be the stupidest idea that anyone could ever possibly come up with.
A) Many institutions, banks, pension funds, etc are required by law to have a certain percentage of their assets in highly rated investments. Many others in practice are required to hold certain percentages (ever read the prospectus of the funds in your 401k?). While what Mike cited was specifically US law, I'd bet there are similar laws in many other countries.
B) EU bans ratings agencies from rating sovereign debt.
A + B = C
C) All these banks and funds now have to liquidate most of that debt at firesale prices because no one will want to, or be able to legally, buy it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 8:22am
Re:
I find the amended section 9.3 interesting.
SAA:
blah blah, Stephens Media shall not grant any encumbrance on any SM copyright... notwithstanding... it shall not be a breach of this agreement if SM... encumbers all or substantially all of its assets... blah blah
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 9:20pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting theory.
I guess only time will tell which of us is right. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll be perfectly with admitting it. Will you?
Actually there are a lot of people who point to the death of Limewire and the rise of services like iTunes as something of a turning point.
iTunes is successful for a number of reasons, but its success has nothing to do with the killing off of whichever P2P windmill system the legacy industry is tilting at today.
Domestic law is adequate for US registered infringing sites.
Oh, really? So you're admitting we don't need any changes to the law. You're not helping your position.
Protect IP will cut the water off for foreign sites, the "six strikes" MOU will cut into P2P and the felony streaming bill will be the cheery on top.
You really have not the slightest idea how the internet works, do you?
And along the way, your right to ... will continue unencumbered.
Promise? Say I'm a member of a forum that allows me and others to exercise my free speech rights. Some members post links (not the actual content, just a pointer) to unauthorized streams of sports programming, exercising their rights. The US government wouldn't decide to try to shut the forums down?
You know what? I have reached my limit. I'm done trying to explain reality to the likes of you. Take all the rope you need to go hang yourself and your industry. I'll just gladly eat popcorn, make pithy comments from the cheap seats, and watch the accelerating failure cascade.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course they're different - I never said they were the same. You're the one making completely stupid and unsupportable comment that once a crime is reported, nothing can stop it being investigated and prosecuted. My statement was meant to be completely absurd because yours was.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully and said "Once one party engages the justice system, they can't back out until a verdict comes down." That's still absurd without getting caught up in the difference between civil and criminal law. We know its absurd because the police and DAs drop investigations, cases, and charges every single day.
On the post: Feds Charge Aaron Swartz With Felony Hacking... For Downloading A Ton Of Academic Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the indictment. On every single section in the "Means of Committing Offenses" the indictment is very clear on what was happening. On (specific) date at (specific) time using (specific brand) laptop Swartz did (specific) act.
Then it gets down to the last one, and it reads like: "Oh, by-the-way, he was gonna upload these to some filesharing site."
...
Still waiting.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying that once one party initiates a lawsuit, they must see it through to the bitter end until a guilty/not guilty verdict is handed down? That they can't decide that there wasn't a problem, nor can they decide to settle for a lesser charge/amount?
On the post: Arresting People Associated With Anonymous Unlikely To Have The Impact The Feds Expect
Re:
This in time will make a difference, and if you don't believe that the technology exists to track even those that are using different means to protect themselves, then I feel real sorry for the doubters.
Yes, this same strategy is working so well for fighting P2P filesharing.
On the post: Feds Charge Aaron Swartz With Felony Hacking... For Downloading A Ton Of Academic Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, from the indictment, we're all waiting for what evidence it contains that he did either intend to distribute them or actually did distribute them.
...
Still waiting.
On the post: No, Google Is Not Rewiring How We Remember
Re: I call bullshit.
The report also notes that people have an easier time remembering where to find certain info than they do remembering the info itself.
I remember going through school - mostly before the Internet. The way I studied then, and still remember things now is no different. Someone asks me a question, the first thing I think of is where the information is, whether its the page of a textbook or a webpage. I then visualize the page, and have the answer.
Sure I'll use Google (or search my email archive, or open the webpage or document) to confirm I'm correct. And sure, I'll search Google for new information I don't already have.
If the last 300 years of modern science hasn't rewired our prehistoric-evolved brains, then the last 15 years of the Internet sure as hell has not.
On the post: Senator Gillibrand Thinks PROTECT IP Is About The Internet Kill Switch
Re:
The problem is that even that process is broken.
On the post: The Failures Of Facial Recognition Software: Drivers Losing Licenses For Looking Like Terrorists
Re:
On the post: Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?
Re: Re: Re:
The idea is interesting, and I definitely would consider it one of the many economic solutions that exist.
On the post: Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?
Re:
The "technology community" has already given you a solution. Adapt your business model to the new reality of today instead of trying to turn the clock back to 20 years ago.
Don't ask me for a "technical solution" to a problem that is not a technical problem. If you bring me a computer with a burnt out PSU or a cracked motherboard, don't ask me for a software fix - it's a hardware problem. Likewise, don't ask me for a technical solution to an economic (business model) problem.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, how DO you reconcile your demands that
As you stated, here's where things are different:
-Electrical companies are completely upfront about how much they charge per unit
-The marginal cost of electricity is much different than the marginal cost of bandwidth
-There's a real-time meter on your house that measures the electricity used that you can look at that is required by law to be accurate.
-Everywhere that I've lived at least, electrical companies cannot arbitrarily raise their rates or set caps
I'm against the idea of bandwidth caps because they are poorly implemented, unfair to certain situations, the limits are unreasonable or arbitrary, and the companies have a clear conflict of interest.
I see 2 fair and reasonable options. Neither of which we are remotely close to in the US. Both of these are easily possible with current technology.
1) Real competition in the broadband market. All (or most) users have multiple choices for a provider, and those providers have different rates, policies, services.
2) Broadband as a utility, just like electricity or water. Rates in which the public has input into and reflect the reality of what it actually costs. Rates which go down over time as technology improves. Real-time accurate meters that can be independently verified.
On the post: The Confusing Case Of Lovecraft's Copyrights
Copyright
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, That'll Work
So what happens when there's no more gold to be dug out of the ground? No more money can enter the economy.
So say I'm an entrepreneur. I want to start a small business, but I need some capital to do so. If no one can lend me money, my business doesn't get started. People I would have hired don't get jobs. Stuff I would have purchased doesn't get bought, so the companies selling/making it don't get paid, and can't pay their workers.
Not all debt is bad debt.
I would not have the good job I have now if I hadn't gone to college. I had to get a loan to do so. Somewhere around $35k for that, but I get paid double that per year now. Getting to my job would be difficult without the car I bought - again with a loan (FYI, fully paid off in 3 years). I live within my means, have savings, have a very good start on retirement investments. When properly managed, debt can be a good thing.
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Re: Re: Yeah, That'll Work
I assume you mean the gold standard.
Please read your history. NPR has a good piece on it: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/27/135604828/why-we-left-the-gold-standard
Fact: The Great Depression while western economies were on the gold standard.
Fact: Most economists agreed that coming off the gold standard is what helped get us out of the Great Depression.
Fact: No serious economists think going back onto the gold standard is a good thing or even remotely possible.
On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble
Obvious consequence
A) Many institutions, banks, pension funds, etc are required by law to have a certain percentage of their assets in highly rated investments. Many others in practice are required to hold certain percentages (ever read the prospectus of the funds in your 401k?). While what Mike cited was specifically US law, I'd bet there are similar laws in many other countries.
B) EU bans ratings agencies from rating sovereign debt.
A + B = C
C) All these banks and funds now have to liquidate most of that debt at firesale prices because no one will want to, or be able to legally, buy it.
Great Depression 2.0, this time its for real.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re:
SAA:
blah blah, Stephens Media shall not grant any encumbrance on any SM copyright... notwithstanding... it shall not be a breach of this agreement if SM... encumbers all or substantially all of its assets... blah blah
On the post: Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess only time will tell which of us is right. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll be perfectly with admitting it. Will you?
Actually there are a lot of people who point to the death of Limewire and the rise of services like iTunes as something of a turning point.
iTunes is successful for a number of reasons, but its success has nothing to do with the killing off of whichever P2P windmill system the legacy industry is tilting at today.
Domestic law is adequate for US registered infringing sites.
Oh, really? So you're admitting we don't need any changes to the law. You're not helping your position.
Protect IP will cut the water off for foreign sites, the "six strikes" MOU will cut into P2P and the felony streaming bill will be the cheery on top.
You really have not the slightest idea how the internet works, do you?
And along the way, your right to ... will continue unencumbered.
Promise? Say I'm a member of a forum that allows me and others to exercise my free speech rights. Some members post links (not the actual content, just a pointer) to unauthorized streams of sports programming, exercising their rights. The US government wouldn't decide to try to shut the forums down?
You know what? I have reached my limit. I'm done trying to explain reality to the likes of you. Take all the rope you need to go hang yourself and your industry. I'll just gladly eat popcorn, make pithy comments from the cheap seats, and watch the accelerating failure cascade.
On the post: Billboard Apparently Unable To Hire Its Own Writers For Copycat Conference; So Just Copies Text From Others
Re:
On the post: Making Sure Your Ass Is Covered
Re: Re: No wonder you don't like "intellectual property"!
I haven't yet ruled out that I'm not a dreaming butterfly.
Next >>