Exactly. Legal or not, this is a really silly suit. As I understand it, Aereo is also rebroadcasting all of the ads as well as the other stuff. They're increasing the value of the broadcaster's content, for free.
Does this affect search engines. If I recall correctly, Google has a rather large presence corporate in Ireland, so it'd be interesting to see how they react.
WB isn't in the wine business, is it? No risk of confusion, no trademark violation! And the public domain book should be relevant in defeating any claims of dilution.
I'd be more comfortable with very limited, specific "forgets". For example, it's probably good practice to not retain certain credit card information for an extended period of time. It also helps you avoid free speech issues -- e.g. your credit card number is unlikely to be part of political dialogue, public interest, or other commentary.
Ironically, this could require that you maintain more information about certain users. Suppose someone posts simply as "John Smith" without creating an account. Several years later, someone named John Smith returns to ask that you remove his data. You'd have no way of verifying that this is the same John Smith, unless you retained personally identifiable information about him after he posted.
If you're hiding a TrueCrypt volume within another volume, mounting only the outer volume won't reveal the existence of the hidden volume. First, the "empty" space in a volume is always filled with noise, so the presence of a hidden volume can't be inferred by size. Second, attempting to write past the size limit of the outer volume won't result in a failure. You'll just overwrite the hidden volume. This happens because TrueCrypt assumes if you enter in only the password for the outer volume, you're in plausible deniability mode and that it's preferable to overwrite hidden data than reveal it.
As for legal process, it's possible they could force you to disclose the password to a hidden volume, but that's only if they know there is one. Since there's no technical way to reveal the presence of a hidden volume, the only way they could know about this is if (1) they force you to reveal your state of mind, which is clearly forbidden by the 5th Amendment, or (2) you do something stupid like brag about your hidden volume to a police officer.
As for the deadman's switch idea, I'm not a fan. In order to explain why you don't have the password, you have to reveal that there is a deadman's switch. And the presence of a deadman's switch may indicate to authorities a sign of wrongdoing. Or may be interpreted as an attempt to destroy evidence.
There's a lot of value in FTP servers with fancier front ends. I was trying to figure out how my less-than-tech-savvy friends could share vacation photos with each other. Easiest solution was to ask everyone to upload everything to MediaFire and pass around links.
I used to think that Righthaven might make a useful law school case study some day, but now I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an entire class studying Righthaven in order to teach lawyers exactly what not to do in handling cases.
You could probably build a legal ethics course around Righthaven.
I haven't used them myself, so I can't testify to quality -- but a lot of the redditors are recommending namecheap.com, along with a SOPASucks coupon code.
>> Do those automated Predator drones have secondary liability protections?
Doubtful.
But suppose the cops took a military-grade Predator drone and installed their own custom software on it, and ... bad things happen. I wouldn't blame the Predator manufacturer liable for that, just because they let people install custom software on the drones. Might be a different story if the manufacturer was actively involved in making the custom software.
There'll be things humans are better at for a long time. But we are starting to see exponential growth in certain areas of robotics. Seven years ago, researchers couldn't make an autonomous car drive eight miles across a desert. Last year, Google was testing them in city streets.
One plus for the robot prison guard is that they're easier to fix. Suppose a robot does make a mistake and uses excessive force. Once a programmer identifies what went wrong, the fix can easily be pushed to all of the other robots very quickly. In contrast, remedying police brutality requires extensive training. And lot of what appears as excessive force may really be a gut self-protective instinct on the part of the officer that's very hard to figure out.
Will we replace all cops with machines? Probably not, you want a human to have final say over use of force for Isaac Asimov-type reasons. But I wouldn't be surprised if, in 30 years, we saw a 3 to 1 ratio of robots to humans in corrections and law enforcement.
"Everyone else" isn't homogeneous. If you get a lemon of a car, you can often go after everyone from the dealer to the car manufacturer to the guy the manufacturer bought screws from.
In contrast, Apple isn't liable when an iOS app wipes out all your data. And Internet companies get special safe harbors under Section 230 and the DMCA.
Under existing law, robots are treated more like cars than smartphones. The proposal is that, once you start installing apps on your robot, it makes more sense to flip that.
On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?
Re: Money for nothing while being done a favor.
On the post: UK Trying To Censor Parody Video About The 2012 Olympics
Re: Re:
On the post: Ireland Signs Controversial 'Irish SOPA' Into Law; Kicks Off New Censorship Regime
On the post: If Major Labels Are All About Helping Artists, Why Do We Keep Seeing Artists Calling Out Their Labels For Screwing Them?
iTunes? BandCamp? Amazon?
On the post: Canadians Respond To Internet Spying Bill By 'Revealing All' To Politician Backing It
Re:
On the post: Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz
Whine
On the post: Iranian Filmmaker Banned From Filmmaking... Makes Documentary Via His iPhone About His Plight
Re:
Mike's point is that technology is making it cheaper to tell those stories. He's excited because that means more people can tell more stories.
Also, you're a self-righteous ass. You may never actually understand that.
On the post: People Rushing To Give Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Just Hours For Brand New Adventure Game
On the post: More Details About Paramount's Offer To Law Schools To Teach Them About The Evils Of 'Content Theft'
Re: They might want to get their terms straight
On the post: Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Re:
On the post: Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Anonymity
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re: Re: Re: A "deadman switch" algorithm
As for legal process, it's possible they could force you to disclose the password to a hidden volume, but that's only if they know there is one. Since there's no technical way to reveal the presence of a hidden volume, the only way they could know about this is if (1) they force you to reveal your state of mind, which is clearly forbidden by the 5th Amendment, or (2) you do something stupid like brag about your hidden volume to a police officer.
As for the deadman's switch idea, I'm not a fan. In order to explain why you don't have the password, you have to reveal that there is a deadman's switch. And the presence of a deadman's switch may indicate to authorities a sign of wrongdoing. Or may be interpreted as an attempt to destroy evidence.
On the post: Megaupload Shutdown Means Other Companies Turning Off Useful Services
Re: Re: It's actually really, really bad
On the post: Righthaven Files Emergency Motion To Try To Keep Its Assets
You could probably build a legal ethics course around Righthaven.
On the post: Thomas Jefferson: Original Remixer
Re:
On the post: SOPA Supporters Learning (Slowly) That Pissing Off Reddit Is A Bad Idea
Re: That's it, I'm done with GoDaddy
On the post: SOPA Supporters Learning (Slowly) That Pissing Off Reddit Is A Bad Idea
Visa?
Was there a switch in positions?
On the post: Luddite Redux: Don't Kill The Robots Just Because They Replace Some Jobs
Re:
Doubtful.
But suppose the cops took a military-grade Predator drone and installed their own custom software on it, and ... bad things happen. I wouldn't blame the Predator manufacturer liable for that, just because they let people install custom software on the drones. Might be a different story if the manufacturer was actively involved in making the custom software.
On the post: Luddite Redux: Don't Kill The Robots Just Because They Replace Some Jobs
Re: Re:
One plus for the robot prison guard is that they're easier to fix. Suppose a robot does make a mistake and uses excessive force. Once a programmer identifies what went wrong, the fix can easily be pushed to all of the other robots very quickly. In contrast, remedying police brutality requires extensive training. And lot of what appears as excessive force may really be a gut self-protective instinct on the part of the officer that's very hard to figure out.
Will we replace all cops with machines? Probably not, you want a human to have final say over use of force for Isaac Asimov-type reasons. But I wouldn't be surprised if, in 30 years, we saw a 3 to 1 ratio of robots to humans in corrections and law enforcement.
On the post: Luddite Redux: Don't Kill The Robots Just Because They Replace Some Jobs
Re:
In contrast, Apple isn't liable when an iOS app wipes out all your data. And Internet companies get special safe harbors under Section 230 and the DMCA.
Under existing law, robots are treated more like cars than smartphones. The proposal is that, once you start installing apps on your robot, it makes more sense to flip that.
Next >>