What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
After all, look what a wonderful job government does at deciding everything else? What could go wrong?
Seeing how government works, Google could get a jump and allow lobbyists to directly pay Google for search results. Oh, but that would deprive poor, underpaid, downtrodden government officials of that money going into their pockets.
What about this idea. Take most of the proceeds from that windfall and invest it in building your next hit game. You've now already got an experienced team and infrastructure for building and marketing it. Plus a qualified audience of people who are likely purchasers.
Oh, wait. But I'm forgetting something. Hollywood accounting. The six million in sales, and hundreds of millions doesn't matter. Hollywood Accounting means the game didn't make any money. That team of artists and dreamers don't get anything. You're right! Stop investing / creating. Just take what you've got and try to milk it for a century.
The rumors for months are that, as with pretty much every other successful internet music-related service, the legacy players come asking for huge chunks of equity if you don't want to get sued.
So PRS seems to be saying is: "hey our legacy dinosaur business is dying. Wouldn't it be nice if we owned some flashy new innovative internet companies?"
This really and truly does sound more like mobsters every single day. Pay us 'protection' money or give us controlling interest in your business. That protection money is to cover things that SoundCloud is not even doing, but their users are doing and SoundCloud is actively trying to prevent.
Do you block my SSH remote login to my home computer which has a static IP address?
If not, then consider.
I have an app on my phone and my tablet that builds an encrypted tunnel to my home computer.
(android app: Proxoid. On my Linux computer: sshd, which enables remote SSH login.)
I haven't used this since back in the day when I needed to routinely do 'tethered' browsing from a netbook using my non-rooted phone. But it still works.
As long as Proxoid can SSH to my box at home, then all my browsing is tunneled through that login. If I browse to TechDirt, the connection appears to TD to originate from my box at home.
If the need existed, this kind of setup could be made much simpler for non geeks to use.
In short: in the long run, if you allow any kind of way to communicate packets to the outside world, people will find ways to build an encrypted tunnel through it. Even if the only form of communication were plain HTTP to, say, google. I would use a Google AppEngine app to be the endpoint of a tunnel where my Http requests/responses contained encrypted content in the body that tunneled any other kind of TCP or UDP packets through.
Unless you're going to block everything and only whitelist your preferred sites, you're going to lose this game.
Their interest is in getting as many new generations of young people hooked as possible.
Isn't that obvious?
Each new 'user' is a lifetime revenue stream. And they are likely to get other members of their family and friends addicted to this product.
Cigarettes are safe and legal. But a huge problem our society has is that we allow licensed physicians prescribe pain killers to people who need them. Drugs that have been carefully manufactured and have huge amounts of scientific data before they were ever allowed to be prescribed.
This is why everyone needs to be using encryption by default.
The fact that intermediaries can inject anything into your traffic is a huge security hole. Within the last few daze there is news of AT&T injecting ads into HTTP traffic, and actually modifying the HTML markup. This demonstrates an ability to also insert any arbitrary JavaScript executable code. Or Flash objects if your browser might be so equipped. (Or ActiveX, or Silverblight, or Java) They could inject Javascript code that probes for vulnerabilities of your browser so that your next HTTP connection can then have a more targeted payload injected.
The really nice thing about this technique is that AT&T wouldn't even have to make your browser make strange unexpected connections to the mothership that your network monitoring aparatus (if any) might detect. They can inject 'outbound' traffic right into your next HTTP request to anywhere. Then remove it in transit so that your target site like TechDirt doesn't see any extra content or HTTP Headers. But AT&T's injection systems would see them as it removes them. Nice neat invisible two-way communication with code running in your browser, and no unexpected connections.
This potential has always existed with HTTP. It's just that now network equipment has become powerful enough to do this kind of despicable evil, which is even worse than advertising itself, on a massive scale.
You would really do better complaining about the Extortion. You would have a real argument there.
> "Yes I have it, your honour, but they still have it too. > Yes I know that it was their's, but it still is - it's just kinda ours now".
That is EXACTLY how copying works. Whether authorized or not, once I have a copy of something, the copy is mine, and the original is still theirs. My neighbor gave me a copy of his cookie recipe. Guess what? He still has it. And I have it. Exactly as you are saying in your argument. Yes, it's still his, but it's also mine too, and not kinda.
You could argue the copy was unauthorized. But maybe I obtained my copy innocently, possibly without understanding the implications, from some website that offered it for download. (As in the copyright case: you should be going after the download site, not the downloader, not Google.) Some people could argue that once disclosed, this data is of public interest (eg, reporters, researchers, politicians running against an Ashley member for the same political office).
The extortion argument is so much simpler and clear.
Chicken Sandwich in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey
I seem to remember some astronauts traveling from a moonbase to a remote location in some type of transport. It was time to eat. They opened a container. It had several types of (copyrighted) sandwiches.
One of them was a Chicken Sandwich.
Or maybe not...
"Anybody hungry?" [Rummaging] "What's that, chicken?" "Something like that. Tastes the same anyway." "Got any ham?" [Rummaging] "Ham, ham, ham…"
On the post: As India Goes After Google, A Simple Question: Do You Really Want Governments Deciding Search Results?
Re: What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
Form a global government?
Decide search results based on the highest paying lobbyist?
On the post: As India Goes After Google, A Simple Question: Do You Really Want Governments Deciding Search Results?
What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
Seeing how government works, Google could get a jump and allow lobbyists to directly pay Google for search results. Oh, but that would deprive poor, underpaid, downtrodden government officials of that money going into their pockets.
On the post: The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations
Re: Listen up other industries!
It is impossible to parody the RIAA or MPAA without it being taken seriously.
On the post: The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations
Re: But Amazon, the most invasive suspicious draconian corporation I've yet heard of, surpassing even Apple, LOVES this!
Censorship is when a point of view is being suppressed. Having one is a prerequisite in order for it to be censored.
Ignorance, Lies, Name Calling, and Trolling do NOT qualify as a 'point of view'.
Please do not try to elevate it to such.
On the post: The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations
Listen up other industries!
Hey, Nuclear Power? Nuclear Weapons Research? Three Letter Agencies? Are you paying attention?
If any of you think that the secrecy and security of your goodies approaches that of the MPAA, then you should be paying attention to best practices.
Coming soon!
* Harassing and Searching of everyone your employees meet! (including dating)
* Randomly performed surgical inspection procedures!
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
Re: Well, they sold 6 million copies
Oh, wait. But I'm forgetting something. Hollywood accounting. The six million in sales, and hundreds of millions doesn't matter. Hollywood Accounting means the game didn't make any money. That team of artists and dreamers don't get anything. You're right! Stop investing / creating. Just take what you've got and try to milk it for a century.
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
Re: all well and good
On the post: UK Music Collection Society PRS Sues SoundCloud
Re: Re: You mean: "a woman who played" SOMEONE ELSE'S "music to her horses"
Did she have a license for Performance For Horses?
I think not.
And a Performance Rights Society is likely to separately license performances for each end of the horse.
On the post: UK Music Collection Society PRS Sues SoundCloud
Equity?
This really and truly does sound more like mobsters every single day. Pay us 'protection' money or give us controlling interest in your business. That protection money is to cover things that SoundCloud is not even doing, but their users are doing and SoundCloud is actively trying to prevent.
On the post: United In Flight WiFi Blocks Popular News Sites
Dear United
If not, then consider.
I have an app on my phone and my tablet that builds an encrypted tunnel to my home computer.
(android app: Proxoid. On my Linux computer: sshd, which enables remote SSH login.)
I haven't used this since back in the day when I needed to routinely do 'tethered' browsing from a netbook using my non-rooted phone. But it still works.
As long as Proxoid can SSH to my box at home, then all my browsing is tunneled through that login. If I browse to TechDirt, the connection appears to TD to originate from my box at home.
If the need existed, this kind of setup could be made much simpler for non geeks to use.
In short: in the long run, if you allow any kind of way to communicate packets to the outside world, people will find ways to build an encrypted tunnel through it. Even if the only form of communication were plain HTTP to, say, google. I would use a Google AppEngine app to be the endpoint of a tunnel where my Http requests/responses contained encrypted content in the body that tunneled any other kind of TCP or UDP packets through.
Unless you're going to block everything and only whitelist your preferred sites, you're going to lose this game.
Plus, I hope the FCC nails you for this.
On the post: Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted
Re: What is their interest?
On the post: Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted
Re: Re:
On the post: Tobacco Industry's Interest In Trade Negotiations? Totally Redacted
What is their interest?
Isn't that obvious?
Each new 'user' is a lifetime revenue stream. And they are likely to get other members of their family and friends addicted to this product.
Cigarettes are safe and legal. But a huge problem our society has is that we allow licensed physicians prescribe pain killers to people who need them. Drugs that have been carefully manufactured and have huge amounts of scientific data before they were ever allowed to be prescribed.
On the post: Study: 15% Of Wireless Users Now Tracked By Stealth Headers, Or 'Zombie Cookies'
Not if you're using HTTPS
The fact that intermediaries can inject anything into your traffic is a huge security hole. Within the last few daze there is news of AT&T injecting ads into HTTP traffic, and actually modifying the HTML markup. This demonstrates an ability to also insert any arbitrary JavaScript executable code. Or Flash objects if your browser might be so equipped. (Or ActiveX, or Silverblight, or Java) They could inject Javascript code that probes for vulnerabilities of your browser so that your next HTTP connection can then have a more targeted payload injected.
The really nice thing about this technique is that AT&T wouldn't even have to make your browser make strange unexpected connections to the mothership that your network monitoring aparatus (if any) might detect. They can inject 'outbound' traffic right into your next HTTP request to anywhere. Then remove it in transit so that your target site like TechDirt doesn't see any extra content or HTTP Headers. But AT&T's injection systems would see them as it removes them. Nice neat invisible two-way communication with code running in your browser, and no unexpected connections.
This potential has always existed with HTTP. It's just that now network equipment has become powerful enough to do this kind of despicable evil, which is even worse than advertising itself, on a massive scale.
On the post: Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US
Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.
Google's ads, unlike almost all others, are surprisingly un-obnoxious.
On the post: Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US
We have a right to comedy in the US!
I want the laughs from the idiots who want to be forgotten.
Nobody is too high and mighty to get laughed at in the US. Isn't what what our founders wanted?
On the post: The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
Re:
> that were run appear to be the victims of a crime.
As long as the ads made contact with a targeted set of eyeballs, the advertiser is happy.
Advertiser paid. Ad was delivered.
But Dan didn't get the cut he was entitled to. He is the victim. Not the advertiser.
On the post: Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
Re: Re: Re: Honest mistakes happen too -- just like on "file sharing" sites -- and Youtube is not about to attempt judging!
On the post: Ashley Madison Continues To Use Dubious Legal Takedown Threats To Try To Disappear The Data It Failed To Protect
Re: Re: Blackmail for instance.
> "Yes I have it, your honour, but they still have it too.
> Yes I know that it was their's, but it still is - it's just kinda ours now".
That is EXACTLY how copying works. Whether authorized or not, once I have a copy of something, the copy is mine, and the original is still theirs. My neighbor gave me a copy of his cookie recipe. Guess what? He still has it. And I have it. Exactly as you are saying in your argument. Yes, it's still his, but it's also mine too, and not kinda.
You could argue the copy was unauthorized. But maybe I obtained my copy innocently, possibly without understanding the implications, from some website that offered it for download. (As in the copyright case: you should be going after the download site, not the downloader, not Google.) Some people could argue that once disclosed, this data is of public interest (eg, reporters, researchers, politicians running against an Ashley member for the same political office).
The extortion argument is so much simpler and clear.
On the post: Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
Chicken Sandwich in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey
One of them was a Chicken Sandwich.
Or maybe not...
"Anybody hungry?"
[Rummaging] "What's that, chicken?"
"Something like that. Tastes the same anyway."
"Got any ham?"
[Rummaging] "Ham, ham, ham…"
Next >>