This article didn't bother pointing out that he gathered email addresses and (if I understand correctly) credit card numbers of all of the AT&T iPad customers.
Right, but what about gathering credit card numbers and email addresses for all of that company's customers, then spreading that out for all to see?
THAT is what this guy is being punished for, not just for finding the security hole.
I hate that every article about this guy makes it out like he was an innocent "security researcher," when he was anything but. He was looking to do damage, and that's what he did.
The thing is, a Copyright is only infringed if the copy was made without permission.
If all of Hollywood is doing this, then this sort of copying is clearly tacitly permitted, if not outright licensed, by the movie studios and the creative types.
Copying a movie for review by other producers and directors is obviously far different than WaReZ4eVa torrenting movies because he doesn't want to pay the $9.99 ticket price at the local Hollywood Cinema.
Using a drone over private property should be treated exactly as if a person was standing in that spot: the same trespassing offenses should apply to unmanned, remote control cameras (whether aerial, on wheels, or on legs.)
I agree that private individuals should not be flying radio-control gunships.
Private parties can't photograph open spaces or receive radio signals from an unmanned aircraft. Intercepting radio signals is already a protected activity, within certain bounds. It should remain that way.
Think about football: when you catch a ball meant for the other team, that's an interception. When you catch your QB's throw, that's just receiving a pass.
It's the same in radiospeak. Intercepting communications is defined as receiving communications not intended for you.
Receiving radio control transmissions intended to control that device does not count as interception.
This is one example where a jury of one's PEERS could be done better.
I've been on a few jury panels (never actually been a juror), and it seems that the people picked are the ones who know little about a case. Anyone with computer knowledge will be excused by the prosecutor. Anyone with law enforcement ties is excused by the defense.
The goal seems to be to get a group of 12 people who know absolutely nothing about the subject matter of the case.
It's not really a wonder that people are convicted of CF&A violations when they're often just exploring potential bugs out of a sense of curiosity or even being security-minded.
I am boycotting this particular game, Diablo 3, and any other game that will stop working when the server is down.
Ironically, I actually WANT a multi-player component in The Sims, (a peer to peer component, not a company-hosted one), and I never even thought about wanting to run Sim City as an online game.
Part of our modern compensation system for Copyrightable works is that companies can pay the author for the work far ahead of the time where the work actually earns any money.
For example: a comic book company buys the works to the Power Guy character, giving the creator $100,000 in advancce, along with royalties. The only catch is that Mega Comics now owns the Copyrights.
Would that guy have been able to earn a living by publishing a little webcomic and maybe some e-books? Current trends say that he's still be working a day job and also writing and drawing Power Guy at night; he would never end up getting out all the other stuff in his head, since he has to work at Innitech by day to feed his family.
On the other hand, now that he has enough money to live comfortably for a while, he can script out a huge story arc that has Power Guy building a team of super heroes and saving the world from the evil mind-controlling drones of The Congolmerate. After that, he can go on to write the world's finest Superhero opera, and Mega Comics follows THAT up with a television series and a line of successful video games.
Part of Mega Comics' motivation for taking a risk on the artist who created all this is the knowledge that they can leverage his material even after he's gone.
Personally, I don't want to deny creators exclusive control over the works for their lifetime. When it comes to corporate exploitation after the creators' death... we only have to look at the continued success of real-life examples like Superman and Batman to see that this system DOES encourage new works. It's not like Superman stopped being productive after his creators died. It's not like Batman hasn't had 8 movies, 3 TV series, and more popularity than nearly any other fictional character in existence.
I have fewer issues with the term of Copyright than I do with over the top enforcement and complete lack of ability to legally use orphaned works. (I also think we need better systems for fighting piracy; the current system of notify and takedown is expensive and only really protects the big guys who can afford to continuously search for their pirated content.)
But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. Because of this, the government says that the site does not qualify for a “safe harbor” of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit.
Anyways, it doesn't matter whether Mega specificaly was or was not soliciting it. My point is that if you ARE soliciting Copyrighted content, you are in violation of Safe Harbor.
... and we also got Gone With The Wind and Robert A Heinlein and Asimov and Star Wars and John Williams and Rush.
Talk about cherry-picking your examples. I'm sure the 15th Century also had its share of ridiculous thespians who couldn't write, sing, or act and still tried to make a living in the arts.
It also points out why Software as a Service is a problem.
I discovered Google Reader by accident, and it was the first (and pretty much only) RSS reader I've used since then. Whatever reasons Google has chosen to cancel it are largely irrelevant; Google has the power to turn it off - and that's the problem. If I had a desktop RSS reader, it would be impossible for any company to simply pull the plug and make my reader go away.
I keep hearing about how Software As A Service is so great for the industry; it lets companies build a predictable income and it lets us "finance" our software by paying in small, bite size chunks.
But it also opens the door to having our service interrupted at any time.
For this reason alone - my lack of ensured continuity - I categorically reject the principle of relying on Software As A Service or a cloud platform as my primary way of doing anything.
Fortunately, Reader is a convenience and not a necessity. Before Reader, I simply kept a bookmark folder of daily reading. After Reader, I'll probably download a desktop RSS reader and start using that.
Either way, this is a huge wakeup call to all those people who look to the cloud as some sort form of software salvation.
And therein lies the problem: I don't agree with the RIAA.
Terrestrial radio, Cable music, satellite radio and Internet radio are not fundamentally any different from each other.
No one has yet put forth a real answer about why getting music through my computer or cell phone makes it more valuable than when I pull it out of the air on my FM receiver.
The only argument I've heard is that radio play is exposure for artists. If that's the case, then how is Internet radio play any less valuable a tool for artist exposure?
Of course, I have also stopped listening to music on the radio altogether; I either download songs from Amazon, listen to Spotify, or listen to podcasts. In fact, I have been exposed to MORE artists as a result of Internet radio than I ever was on FM.
I find it interesting that satellite Internet radio came to be when royalties were lower. Now that they've gone up, there hasn't been any real innovation in that space.
(Yes, we've got some music on demand services now, but those aren't relying on the compulsory licensing that radio services do, so that's a whole other conversation.)
The purpose of Copyright is to spur innovation. What it's being used for in this instance is to prevent competition, and I don't think that's at all the intent of the law or fair to the industry or to consumers.
You always own the rights to a work unless you explicitly give them away.
So you could and should register it with the LOC, just like any work you want to preserve.
You could also place a notice in the work that states explicit terms of use, such as: "I donate this work to the public domain. You may freely copy, sell, modify, or use this work."
But really, when many people say "Public Domain" they really mean "Share Alike", so you should probably explore the Creative Commons license and consider publishing your work under the CC-SA license.
I think that characters and works in active use should have longer terms.
For example, Disney still produces Mickey Mouse cartoons, books, and video games. They should retain the rights to the character for as long as they're actively using him and for as long as any of their works with his likeness are still in Copyright.
That would fit the original intent a lot better, I think, than turning Copyright in to a century-long term.
Or maybe she means to have Safe Harbor more explicitly defined, with specific direction to the courts about how to apply it.
Google provides links to sites with no discrimination between "legal" and "not legal." That should qualify for safe harbor, since Google has significant non-infringing uses, and identifying pirate sites vs legitimate sites is not all that simple.
YouTube makes an honest attempt to identify pirated content, even to the point of overreaching and marking stuff as infringing when it's not. This should qualify as safe harbor.
For example: MegaUpload allegedly solicited pirated works. That would not be safe harbor.
Web hosting sites have no interest in what their consumers host. This is safe harbor.
IMO, linking should never be Copyright infringement. Period. No safe harbor applies here, because links are not infringing. If site owners don't like hotlinks, they should implement http-referer checks or use sessions like the rest of us do.
To be honest, I don't really care where it goes, but I think the best purpose for unclaimed funds would be to set up a legal foundation to defray the costs of prosecuting and defending Copyright suits - specifically for small-time holders and managers of free content.
Or just forget the whole statutory license thing and just give it away... I don't really care. My point is that I don't want to see orphaned works in a state where it's illegal to copy them simply because you can't find who owns them. I also hate the practice of "vaulting" an item simply to make it more valuable. Once something is out there in the public, you can't take it back.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re:
Then distributed that list.
This was NOT an innocent security researcher.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re: Re:
THAT is what this guy is being punished for, not just for finding the security hole.
I hate that every article about this guy makes it out like he was an innocent "security researcher," when he was anything but. He was looking to do damage, and that's what he did.
On the post: How Hollywood's Own Pirates Must Inform The Future Of Copyright
It's not infringement if it's permitted
If all of Hollywood is doing this, then this sort of copying is clearly tacitly permitted, if not outright licensed, by the movie studios and the creative types.
Copying a movie for review by other producers and directors is obviously far different than WaReZ4eVa torrenting movies because he doesn't want to pay the $9.99 ticket price at the local Hollywood Cinema.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re:
Do you honestly think that applies here? This guy was looking to harm AT&T, not trying to be a white hat.
In the larger sense, yes - I agree. Whistle blowers often get the shaft, and the legal system does often protect the rich far more than the innocent.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Re: Re: Re: So what?
And I am guessing the judge thought the same thing.
On the post: 'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones
Outdoors - fair game. Indoors - bad idea.
I agree that private individuals should not be flying radio-control gunships.
Private parties can't photograph open spaces or receive radio signals from an unmanned aircraft. Intercepting radio signals is already a protected activity, within certain bounds. It should remain that way.
On the post: 'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones
Re: Drone
It's the same in radiospeak. Intercepting communications is defined as receiving communications not intended for you.
Receiving radio control transmissions intended to control that device does not count as interception.
On the post: Now US Wants Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement With European Union To Include Turkey: Who's Next?
Bad idea...
I don't think that free trade is our problem right now.
On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail
Remember, it's a JURY trial
I've been on a few jury panels (never actually been a juror), and it seems that the people picked are the ones who know little about a case. Anyone with computer knowledge will be excused by the prosecutor. Anyone with law enforcement ties is excused by the defense.
The goal seems to be to get a group of 12 people who know absolutely nothing about the subject matter of the case.
It's not really a wonder that people are convicted of CF&A violations when they're often just exploring potential bugs out of a sense of curiosity or even being security-minded.
On the post: Maxis GM: Our Vision Is More Important Than Our Customers & Lots Of People Love Our Crappy DRM
Re:
Ironically, I actually WANT a multi-player component in The Sims, (a peer to peer component, not a company-hosted one), and I never even thought about wanting to run Sim City as an online game.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Ever heard of corporations?
For example: a comic book company buys the works to the Power Guy character, giving the creator $100,000 in advancce, along with royalties. The only catch is that Mega Comics now owns the Copyrights.
Would that guy have been able to earn a living by publishing a little webcomic and maybe some e-books? Current trends say that he's still be working a day job and also writing and drawing Power Guy at night; he would never end up getting out all the other stuff in his head, since he has to work at Innitech by day to feed his family.
On the other hand, now that he has enough money to live comfortably for a while, he can script out a huge story arc that has Power Guy building a team of super heroes and saving the world from the evil mind-controlling drones of The Congolmerate. After that, he can go on to write the world's finest Superhero opera, and Mega Comics follows THAT up with a television series and a line of successful video games.
Part of Mega Comics' motivation for taking a risk on the artist who created all this is the knowledge that they can leverage his material even after he's gone.
Personally, I don't want to deny creators exclusive control over the works for their lifetime. When it comes to corporate exploitation after the creators' death... we only have to look at the continued success of real-life examples like Superman and Batman to see that this system DOES encourage new works. It's not like Superman stopped being productive after his creators died. It's not like Batman hasn't had 8 movies, 3 TV series, and more popularity than nearly any other fictional character in existence.
I have fewer issues with the term of Copyright than I do with over the top enforcement and complete lack of ability to legally use orphaned works. (I also think we need better systems for fighting piracy; the current system of notify and takedown is expensive and only really protects the big guys who can afford to continuously search for their pirated content.)
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Safe Harbors
But if you haven't actually read any of the 5.3 million articles written about the allegations against Mega, here's the Ars summary on it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/
Anyways, it doesn't matter whether Mega specificaly was or was not soliciting it. My point is that if you ARE soliciting Copyrighted content, you are in violation of Safe Harbor.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Talk about cherry-picking your examples. I'm sure the 15th Century also had its share of ridiculous thespians who couldn't write, sing, or act and still tried to make a living in the arts.
On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work
Software as a service
I discovered Google Reader by accident, and it was the first (and pretty much only) RSS reader I've used since then. Whatever reasons Google has chosen to cancel it are largely irrelevant; Google has the power to turn it off - and that's the problem. If I had a desktop RSS reader, it would be impossible for any company to simply pull the plug and make my reader go away.
I keep hearing about how Software As A Service is so great for the industry; it lets companies build a predictable income and it lets us "finance" our software by paying in small, bite size chunks.
But it also opens the door to having our service interrupted at any time.
For this reason alone - my lack of ensured continuity - I categorically reject the principle of relying on Software As A Service or a cloud platform as my primary way of doing anything.
Fortunately, Reader is a convenience and not a necessity. Before Reader, I simply kept a bookmark folder of daily reading. After Reader, I'll probably download a desktop RSS reader and start using that.
Either way, this is a huge wakeup call to all those people who look to the cloud as some sort form of software salvation.
The cloud is NOT your friend.
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Re: Re:
Terrestrial radio, Cable music, satellite radio and Internet radio are not fundamentally any different from each other.
No one has yet put forth a real answer about why getting music through my computer or cell phone makes it more valuable than when I pull it out of the air on my FM receiver.
The only argument I've heard is that radio play is exposure for artists. If that's the case, then how is Internet radio play any less valuable a tool for artist exposure?
Of course, I have also stopped listening to music on the radio altogether; I either download songs from Amazon, listen to Spotify, or listen to podcasts. In fact, I have been exposed to MORE artists as a result of Internet radio than I ever was on FM.
I find it interesting that satellite Internet radio came to be when royalties were lower. Now that they've gone up, there hasn't been any real innovation in that space.
(Yes, we've got some music on demand services now, but those aren't relying on the compulsory licensing that radio services do, so that's a whole other conversation.)
The purpose of Copyright is to spur innovation. What it's being used for in this instance is to prevent competition, and I don't think that's at all the intent of the law or fair to the industry or to consumers.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Statutory damages
Distributing a 99c song should not invoke a $100,000 fine. That should more like a parking ticket.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Public Domain project
So you could and should register it with the LOC, just like any work you want to preserve.
You could also place a notice in the work that states explicit terms of use, such as: "I donate this work to the public domain. You may freely copy, sell, modify, or use this work."
But really, when many people say "Public Domain" they really mean "Share Alike", so you should probably explore the Creative Commons license and consider publishing your work under the CC-SA license.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re:
For example, Disney still produces Mickey Mouse cartoons, books, and video games. They should retain the rights to the character for as long as they're actively using him and for as long as any of their works with his likeness are still in Copyright.
That would fit the original intent a lot better, I think, than turning Copyright in to a century-long term.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Safe Harbors
Google provides links to sites with no discrimination between "legal" and "not legal." That should qualify for safe harbor, since Google has significant non-infringing uses, and identifying pirate sites vs legitimate sites is not all that simple.
YouTube makes an honest attempt to identify pirated content, even to the point of overreaching and marking stuff as infringing when it's not. This should qualify as safe harbor.
For example: MegaUpload allegedly solicited pirated works. That would not be safe harbor.
Web hosting sites have no interest in what their consumers host. This is safe harbor.
IMO, linking should never be Copyright infringement. Period. No safe harbor applies here, because links are not infringing. If site owners don't like hotlinks, they should implement http-referer checks or use sessions like the rest of us do.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Orphan Works
To be honest, I don't really care where it goes, but I think the best purpose for unclaimed funds would be to set up a legal foundation to defray the costs of prosecuting and defending Copyright suits - specifically for small-time holders and managers of free content.
Or just forget the whole statutory license thing and just give it away... I don't really care. My point is that I don't want to see orphaned works in a state where it's illegal to copy them simply because you can't find who owns them. I also hate the practice of "vaulting" an item simply to make it more valuable. Once something is out there in the public, you can't take it back.
Next >>