Have you dug into how this works at all? The CDNs are "embedded Open Connect Appliances." The exist ON the ISPs network. That's what "embedded" means. You say "There's nothing preventing you from [building your own cdn]." But how likely is BigCellCompany to allow me to install an appliance inside their network?
Mike may or may not hate IP law but he's clearly biased against kale. "Tasteless leaves?" Kale is certainly not tasteless and if the dish served is in fact tasteless that's clearly an issue with the cook preparing the dish, not an inherent issue with kale. Let's put the blame where it properly belong and leave personal biases and prejudices out of the discussion.
I was coming here to say much the same thing. The whole concept of what constitutes "net neutrality" is a bit slippery, as was noted on a recent article here. But one of the major complaints against violations of net neutrality is that they lead to an unlevel playing field. If BigCellCompany Video Service gets a last-mile fast lane and Netflix does not, Netflix is at a competitive disadvantage - their services are slower and less reliable than BigCell's and so less desirable to the customer, all other things being equal. Doesn't the same apply here? If I start Dan's Video Service and my video has to traverse the Internet while Netflix has a CDN sitting at the ISP edge, they have a huge advantage over my service in terms of speed and reliability.
It's likely not only the assailants themselves. There appears to be a large block of their supporters in the local community. The reason she committed suicide was because of the horrible way she was treated and "slut shamed" after the pictures were distributed. After she died, there were reportedly posters put up supporting the assailants.
While the government clings to the Third Party Doctrine and the assertion that the public "voluntarily" turns over this data, the courts have noted that the dynamic has changed. Cellphones are utilitarian at this point, and not some sort of purely voluntary luxury the public can do without.
I'm a network engineer and I'm on call 24/7. I'm required by my job to be reachable at any time I'm not officially on vacation. My company provides me a cell phone and I have to have it with me at all times. There are many other professions with similar requirements. What part of that sounds "voluntary"?
The lack of knowledge, both for the layman trying to gain an insight, as well as from our lack of understanding the complexities of the genome is on par with making a howto guide available on how to build a nuclear device on the kitchen table and not expecting that some of the hactivists polute their environment with nuclear waste.
Horsefeathers. The effect of seeking insight and getting it wrong is unnecessary worry and stress on myself and perhaps my family. The effect of nuclear waste is severe damage to the environment and other people. I own my body and my mind. Not you, not the state. It's perfectly fine to be concerned with the effects of the wrong interpretation of poorly understood information on my life and well being. It's not fine to use the coercive power of the state to prevent me from obtaining that information because you think it's not a wise course of action for me to take.
And when it isn't about probabilities -- if it is certain that you will develop a disease, possibly a devastating one -- there's a strong argument that counselling needs to be made available when that information is given to the person affected.
No, there isn't. There's a strong argument that a counseling would be beneficial. You can even say that there's a justifiable requirement that a doctor provide counseling if they disclose the information to an individual. But to claim that there's a strong argument that the FDA can actively take steps to prevent an individual from gaining that information on their own unless counseling is provided is horse crap.
Finally, someone gets it. This is a case of lawyer-speak running wild, but they're not trying to say you can't remember the information. They're saying (or at least trying to say) you can't take the test, memorize some or all of the questions, and then pass them on to other test takers. There's a huge market for test questions on all sorts of qualification exams. Want to pass a test? Pay a membership to one of many websites that specialize in distributing the test questions, study the questions enough to recognize the correct answer, even if you have no real understanding of what the question is asking or why that particular answer is correct, then go pass the test. This devalues the certification and puts unqualified people in positions that should go to those who've taken the time to actually learn and understand the material. Yes, it's a stupid way to phrase it but the intent is reasonable.
QUOTE A Tasmanian aboriginal language center demanded the removal of the English Wikipedia article on 'palawa kani', claiming copyright over the entirety of the language. We refused to remove the article because copyright law simply cannot be used to stop people from using an entire language or to prevent general discussion about the language. Such a broad claim would have chilled free speech and negatively impacted research, education, and public discourse—activities that Wikimedia serves to promote. END QUOTE
This is more like he was administrative head of a cancer hospital, he retires and six months later announces he has miraculously discovered a cure for cancer.
I don't see that. First, you can always make an argument that money spent should be spend elsewhere. Arguably, money spent to provide 'net access would be better spent providing food to those who are starving. Huge numbers of people don't have access to safe drinking water. I don't think anyone has the right to criticize where someone else donates their money.
Second, I'm not sure what company you're pointing at in reference to looking like the "good guy." To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia IS a good guy. I'd perhaps quibble with some of the editorial choices but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong and thus "bad." Wikepedia is a non-profit and they provide a very valuable service.
If he wanted Jim Clapper to commit a felony, and reveal something that was appropriately classified, Senator Wyden should have acted like a man and revealed it himself, rather than trying to "trap" a career public servant into what for him would be a criminal act.
So Wyden should have been a man - like Edward Snowden? I see all the praise you're lauding on him for his actions.
What about the cases where info from FAA was fed to cops and the FBI with instructions to conceal the source of the info? Wouldn't that also be a case that proves the lie of the statement to the Supreme Court?
I don't know why he didn't countersue under the same law. After all, a traffic ticket is a written communication and it sure annoys the hell out of me when I get one.
Yeah, but you're missing the big point. (For a rarity, it appears Mike did too.) Fee-shifting is entirely in the control of the judges. The whole point of this article, written by one of the chief judges who caused this whole mess, is to say "Yeah, there's a small problem here but it's not that big a deal and besides, we already have the tools to fix it. There's no need for any pesky additional legislation or for Congress to get involved. We got this. Nothing to see here, now move along."
That argument is essentially the same as saying that TV viewers shouldn't be able to skip commercials when they DVR and they can't leave the room or mute the TV or change the channel when commercials are playing live.
No, it isn't. Google isn't forcing you to view ads on your Android device. They're not saying you can't avoid them. They're simply refusing to assist you in doing so.
While I'd have no issue with the Defend to the Death app, it's really not appropriate here. The right to free speech is simply that - the right to speak. It's not a right to force me to listen. It's not a right to force Google or anyone else to publish the speech. If Google kicks those apps out of the Playstore, it is not in any way, shape, form or fashion a violation of the app writer's freedom of speech. Google can certainly decide to be neutral and allow such content and I have no issue with that at all. But they're under no obligation to do so, and free speech rights aren't involved in the issue.
"Those would get rid of the reason to pirate if you didn't already have to have HBO through the cable companies. With it being pirated so much, how much money would they make if they offered it to those pirates at a low cost? And lower cost doesn't have to mean lower profits."
Would they make more money? I honestly don't know. Cable companies pay HBO to carry their programming. That's because of the situation being complained about - if you want to watch HBO, you subscribe to the cable company. Having HBO drives people to the cable companies, so they pay HBO. If HBO offers their shows directly to viewers, they're making themselves less valuable to the cable companies because fewer people will be driven to subscribe to cable in order to get HBO. So the cable companies will either stop paying HBO or will pay them less. Will the revenue from direct purchases be sufficient to overcome the loss of revenue from the cable companies? I have no idea. But it isn't a slam dunk case that it would.
In short, what HBO and the cable companies are doing are creating artificial scarcities. That does two things. It drives people to pirate, and it drives up the cost of legal purchase. The second effect may very well be enough that, from a purely money-making perspective, it outweighs the first.
People pirate for three major reasons: 1. They have no money to buy your product 2. They don't value your product enough to pay for it 3. They're freeloaders who won't pay for any digital goods.
4. They have money and they value your product but you've either not made it available to them or you've gone out of your way to make the available version unattractive with DRM, unskipable lead-in trailers, etc.
On the post: Netflix Patiently Explains To FCC Commissioner Pai That CDNs Are Perfectly Normal, Not Diabolical 'Fast Lanes'
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
On the post: 3 Silly Years Later, Chik-Fil-A Loses Trademark Dispute Over Kale
Re:
On the post: Netflix Patiently Explains To FCC Commissioner Pai That CDNs Are Perfectly Normal, Not Diabolical 'Fast Lanes'
Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
On the post: Canadian Newspaper Under Investigation For Violating Ban On Publishing Names Of Child Pornography Victims
Re: Re:
On the post: AT&T Challenges Government's Warrantless Acquisition Of Cell Site Location Data
Voluntary? In what universe?
I'm a network engineer and I'm on call 24/7. I'm required by my job to be reachable at any time I'm not officially on vacation. My company provides me a cell phone and I have to have it with me at all times. There are many other professions with similar requirements. What part of that sounds "voluntary"?
On the post: Why The FDA Ban On Providing Health Reports Based On Personal Genomes Won't Work
Re: Warning: amateurs at work
Horsefeathers. The effect of seeking insight and getting it wrong is unnecessary worry and stress on myself and perhaps my family. The effect of nuclear waste is severe damage to the environment and other people. I own my body and my mind. Not you, not the state. It's perfectly fine to be concerned with the effects of the wrong interpretation of poorly understood information on my life and well being. It's not fine to use the coercive power of the state to prevent me from obtaining that information because you think it's not a wise course of action for me to take.
On the post: Why The FDA Ban On Providing Health Reports Based On Personal Genomes Won't Work
"Need" doesn't mean what you think it does
No, there isn't. There's a strong argument that a counseling would be beneficial. You can even say that there's a justifiable requirement that a doctor provide counseling if they disclose the information to an individual. But to claim that there's a strong argument that the FDA can actively take steps to prevent an individual from gaining that information on their own unless counseling is provided is horse crap.
On the post: Licensing Boards Think Studying For A Test Is Copyright Infringement, Forbid Memorization Of Material
Re: Re: Quite Literally Insane
On the post: Kudos To Wikimedia Foundation For Resisting All Government Requests To Censor Content
Copyright claim on an entire language
QUOTE
A Tasmanian aboriginal language center demanded the removal of the English Wikipedia article on 'palawa kani', claiming copyright over the entirety of the language. We refused to remove the article because copyright law simply cannot be used to stop people from using an entire language or to prevent general discussion about the language. Such a broad claim would have chilled free speech and negatively impacted research, education, and public discourse—activities that Wikimedia serves to promote.
END QUOTE
On the post: Ex-NSA Boss Defends Patenting His Totally Brand New, Not Developed On Gov't Time, Patent-Pending Cybersecurity Brilliance
Re: Actually...
On the post: Chile Bans Free Delivery Of Social Media Services To Uphold Net Neutrality
Re: Money not well spent.
Second, I'm not sure what company you're pointing at in reference to looking like the "good guy." To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia IS a good guy. I'd perhaps quibble with some of the editorial choices but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong and thus "bad." Wikepedia is a non-profit and they provide a very valuable service.
On the post: Former NSA/CIA Boss' Anger Issues: Claims Senate Staffers Are 'Sissies' And Wyden Isn't 'Acting Like A Man'
Be A Man
So Wyden should have been a man - like Edward Snowden? I see all the praise you're lauding on him for his actions.
On the post: Dianne Feinstein's Bragging About NSA Surveillance Program May Finally Result In It Being Declared Unconstitutional
Info fed to FBI and cops
On the post: Connecticut Man Arrested For Writing Obscenity On Traffic Ticket Payment Form
Re:
On the post: Chief Patent Judge Speaks Out Against Patent Trolls
Re: Fee Shifting
On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store
Re: Re: ABP screwed up
And it's Google's Play Store. If they want to remove the ad blocking app, they can and they will. So what's the problem?
On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store
Re: Re: ABP screwed up
No, it isn't. Google isn't forcing you to view ads on your Android device. They're not saying you can't avoid them. They're simply refusing to assist you in doing so.
On the post: Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be
Re: Defend to the Death App
On the post: Just How Much Do Shows Like Game Of Thrones Owe To Piracy?
Re: Re: Wrong-- It's the paywall
Would they make more money? I honestly don't know. Cable companies pay HBO to carry their programming. That's because of the situation being complained about - if you want to watch HBO, you subscribe to the cable company. Having HBO drives people to the cable companies, so they pay HBO. If HBO offers their shows directly to viewers, they're making themselves less valuable to the cable companies because fewer people will be driven to subscribe to cable in order to get HBO. So the cable companies will either stop paying HBO or will pay them less. Will the revenue from direct purchases be sufficient to overcome the loss of revenue from the cable companies? I have no idea. But it isn't a slam dunk case that it would.
In short, what HBO and the cable companies are doing are creating artificial scarcities. That does two things. It drives people to pirate, and it drives up the cost of legal purchase. The second effect may very well be enough that, from a purely money-making perspective, it outweighs the first.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
4. They have money and they value your product but you've either not made it available to them or you've gone out of your way to make the available version unattractive with DRM, unskipable lead-in trailers, etc.
Next >>