Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:08am
Re: Re: Re:
I do think that Wikileaks and Anonymous are both very different from torrent sites.
I agree they are very different, but not in the ways you say.
If you don't think there is any "personal benefit" to being a part of Wikileaks or similar groups, then you don't understand the concept of political activism. Just because they don't get paid or get something for free doesn't mean there's no personal benefit. In fact, those personal benefits are so much greater than monetary considerations. They want to change the world for the better.
Torrent sites absolutely depend on credibility. There's not much point spending hours downloading fake or low quality files, so the people who upload high quality files are well known and protect their reputations.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:11am
Re:
What these people are showing is exactly how you take apart a distributed organization: You locate it's key points, you either attack or monitor those points for information, and you use the structures and concepts already in place to create dis-information, confusion, and misdirection so that the organization can no longer function as one.
How's that working for RIAA and MPAA's fight against P2P networks? If they manage to kill one off, there's a bunch more that just pop up.
You're making the same mistake. You're assuming that Wikileaks, Assange or Anonymous are entities that if killed off won't be respawned as something even more distributed. If Assange, Wikileaks, and everyone involved with them all disappeared today, there'd be (and already are) a dozen organizations that are willing to do the same things tomorrow in the wider spirit of transparency.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:02am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're misunderstanding. I don't care either way about new TLDs. I don't really see the point of them, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
The blocking is what I care about. To me, if there is any distinction between government owned and privately owned-but government granted monopoly or government subsidized, it is fuzzy.
Lets go back 30 years. Phone service is still a monopoly by AT&T - there is no alternative. If AT&T decided to block calls to phone sex lines, would it be a First Amendment issue?
Now back to today. Can your only local (and government supported) broadband provider block access to .xxx without it becoming a First Amendment issue? What if it is .jew, .atheist, or .africanamerican?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:52pm
Re: Re:
If an ISP decided to block .xxx that's a private company making that decision, and not a First Amendment issue at all.
Mike,
What if the ISP in question has a local government granted monopoly on cable service, or government subsidized phone service, and there are no equivalent internet access alternatives?
I agree with you that the net neutrality issue is actually a lack of competition issue. But the lack of competition is due to the deals that cable companies have cut with local governments to prevent competition.
Shouldn't an ISP that is supported in a significant way by the government also have to follow the same rules (ie, the Constitution)?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:35pm
Re:
I think a good rule of thumb is that if a member of the RIAA or MPAA didn't make ALL money from whatever you just did, they'll consider it to be infringement. They'd charge people each time they pressed a Play button if they could.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 2:11pm
Re:
Ramirez's rights don't exist in a vacuum,
Juries don't exist in a vacuum either, and it is naive to think that they do.
So we have a choice. One option is trying to achieve the impossible and sequester every jury. Take their phones and internet access away, don't let them watch TV, or read the newspaper. Heck, they wouldn't be able to bring along a book, because that might influence them! Make sure they know nothing about anything even remotely related to the case before selecting them, too, otherwise they'll be influenced. Basically stick them in a black box and only feed in 100% judge approved data. This way, only the judge can influence the case.
The other option is to have reasonable restrictions upon what a juror can do. Live their normal lives, just don't discuss details of the case with others. Don't watch or read news reports about this specific case. But if you want to tell your friends that you're stuck with jury duty and its mind numbingly boring, that's fine.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What would you have the judge do? Simply brush it away as nothing happened?
I'd have the judge realize that all the guy did was complain to his friends that the case for which he is serving on a jury is boring. According to the article, that's all he did. He didn't discuss details of the case, nor even which case it was.
Just get out of jury duty and stuff like that won't happen...
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:51am
Re:
If that's the case, how is it that the ISPs can do "tens of thousands" of lookups for these automatically-generated infringement notices, but when faced with a court order to do the same, it's too big a burden?
Very likely because providing information as a result of a court ordered subpoena is an entirely different situation than sending an automated scary email.
Providing incorrect information to the court - there's possibly a perjury charge there. So multiple databases need to be crosschecked by a human being to insure accuracy to the best of their ability.
Automated infringement notice? Blast off scary email message to 1000 users based on the first hit of an IP lookup. Meh, anyone can write a script to do that. Worst that happens is you scare some people into using less of the ISP's precious bandwidth, or you generate a few calls to your outsourced customer service call center.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:40am
Re:
It also pays to understand the technology.
What is the methodology of these automated 'We detected an infringement' letters? Do they actually connect to the IP and download all or part of the file?
Many bit torrent trackers are inserting random IPs into their tables. That's how you get network printer IPs that are 'detected' or how people without computers (but cable service) are sued.
What if the IP is the external address of a NAT? There could be hundreds of hosts behind that NAT and no way to tell which it was.
Heck, it could even be a honeypot machine designed to capture malware for study in order to prevent end users from getting it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Feb 2011 @ 10:13am
Re: Re:
In the UK at least the jury has the right to vote innocent if they disagree with the law. Surely you have a similar system?
Yes, the term is called jury nullification. From my understanding (IANAL) however is that the concept has been weakened considerably. Prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys can get a juror removed if they can show that the juror is intending to do it. Neither judges nor the defense can actually mention that a jury has that power.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:03am
Re:
Things may have changed in the ~10 years since I worked as a clerk, but I doubt it. Scratch offs had a bar code on the back that was used to redeem the tickets. Even though that barcode was unique to each ticket and psuedo-random, it would not be impossible to crack.
The key to beating any gambling game is not to win all the time (that just generates attention), but more than your 'fair' share.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:55am
Re: Anti-bodies.
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Every time some misguided government attempts to place undo control on the internet, thousands of people respond by making that form of control irrelevant.
I agree in general. But as we've seen with Egypt, there are limits to what it can route around. I think we can all imagine that if a dictator was willing, they'd be able to completely censor the Internet.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 11:49am
Re:
shouldnt the hard work that goes into those cures be rewarded?
Is money the only thing you ever think about?
I don't usually think that emotional arguments are productive, but when we're talking about curing diseases, they can be.
Maybe to me the issue of patents and medical research personal. My little sister was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 7 years old. The unadulterated fury I feel about this issue cannot be adequately described unless you have a loved one in the same situation.
It will take years or decades for cures to be developed from the research being done now. And that research is being slowed, hindered, or stopped altogether because some company has locked a critical piece up so they are the only ones to profit from it. Those years and decades may be all that my little sister has before she develops serious complications or dies.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:28am
Re: Re: Freely giving books to other to read. Hmm...
Digital objects don't have that limitation.
DRM.
DRM is an attempt to make digital files act like physical objects.
Publishers can't have it both ways. If they want to go digital, but lock their content up with DRM to create artificial scarcity, then they need to accept everything that goes along with it.
I think it would be a much better idea if the content providers focused on selling real scarcities instead of trying to artificially create them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 2:29pm
Re: Hear, hear...
"No matter how ridiculous one is abusing the legal system for profit, that's simply no excuse for death threats."
Agree with this. And I don't want to trivialize threats of violence. (you knew this was coming) But...
Crossley has a history of making claims that are not backed up by evidence (or is knowingly representing those that do) in an effort to generate profit. This makes the question on whether these threats actually occurred up for scrutiny.
If there are threats made against him or his family, they need to be investigated. Evidence needs to be presented. If there is evidence, the suspects still have a right to defend themselves, dispute that evidence in a court of law, and so on.
This is exactly what should have been done in every single case where someone is being accused of copyright infringement. It is not a perfect system, but its the best we have.
I'm pretty sure no judge or jury would sentence the person paying the bill for an ISP connection to jail if the only 'evidence' is a witness testimony that a bomb threat was received from IP address x.x.x.x.
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Re:
I agree they are very different, but not in the ways you say.
If you don't think there is any "personal benefit" to being a part of Wikileaks or similar groups, then you don't understand the concept of political activism. Just because they don't get paid or get something for free doesn't mean there's no personal benefit. In fact, those personal benefits are so much greater than monetary considerations. They want to change the world for the better.
Torrent sites absolutely depend on credibility. There's not much point spending hours downloading fake or low quality files, so the people who upload high quality files are well known and protect their reputations.
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re:
How's that working for RIAA and MPAA's fight against P2P networks? If they manage to kill one off, there's a bunch more that just pop up.
You're making the same mistake. You're assuming that Wikileaks, Assange or Anonymous are entities that if killed off won't be respawned as something even more distributed. If Assange, Wikileaks, and everyone involved with them all disappeared today, there'd be (and already are) a dozen organizations that are willing to do the same things tomorrow in the wider spirit of transparency.
On the post: US Gov't Interest In Domain Name Veto Represents Yet Another PR Nightmare
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The blocking is what I care about. To me, if there is any distinction between government owned and privately owned-but government granted monopoly or government subsidized, it is fuzzy.
Lets go back 30 years. Phone service is still a monopoly by AT&T - there is no alternative. If AT&T decided to block calls to phone sex lines, would it be a First Amendment issue?
Now back to today. Can your only local (and government supported) broadband provider block access to .xxx without it becoming a First Amendment issue? What if it is .jew, .atheist, or .africanamerican?
On the post: US Gov't Interest In Domain Name Veto Represents Yet Another PR Nightmare
Re: Re:
Mike,
What if the ISP in question has a local government granted monopoly on cable service, or government subsidized phone service, and there are no equivalent internet access alternatives?
I agree with you that the net neutrality issue is actually a lack of competition issue. But the lack of competition is due to the deals that cable companies have cut with local governments to prevent competition.
Shouldn't an ISP that is supported in a significant way by the government also have to follow the same rules (ie, the Constitution)?
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re: Re:
Ooo, I got one!
All of the old celluloid movies rotting away in vaults that the owners won't let be copied onto different formats even if someone else pays for it.
Making sure that those aren't copied insures that there's no old content around, so people have to buy new content. That's effective, right?
/sarc
On the post: Is Downloading And Converting A YouTube Video To An MP3 Infringement?
Re:
FTFY
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re:
Juries don't exist in a vacuum either, and it is naive to think that they do.
So we have a choice. One option is trying to achieve the impossible and sequester every jury. Take their phones and internet access away, don't let them watch TV, or read the newspaper. Heck, they wouldn't be able to bring along a book, because that might influence them! Make sure they know nothing about anything even remotely related to the case before selecting them, too, otherwise they'll be influenced. Basically stick them in a black box and only feed in 100% judge approved data. This way, only the judge can influence the case.
The other option is to have reasonable restrictions upon what a juror can do. Live their normal lives, just don't discuss details of the case with others. Don't watch or read news reports about this specific case. But if you want to tell your friends that you're stuck with jury duty and its mind numbingly boring, that's fine.
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd have the judge realize that all the guy did was complain to his friends that the case for which he is serving on a jury is boring. According to the article, that's all he did. He didn't discuss details of the case, nor even which case it was.
Just get out of jury duty and stuff like that won't happen...
How civically responsible of you.
On the post: Sony Demanding Identity Of Anyone Who Saw PS3 Jailbreak Video On YouTube
Re:
Oh wait...
On the post: MPAA Threatens To Have Google Disconnected From The Internet Over File Sharing?
Re:
Very likely because providing information as a result of a court ordered subpoena is an entirely different situation than sending an automated scary email.
Providing incorrect information to the court - there's possibly a perjury charge there. So multiple databases need to be crosschecked by a human being to insure accuracy to the best of their ability.
Automated infringement notice? Blast off scary email message to 1000 users based on the first hit of an IP lookup. Meh, anyone can write a script to do that. Worst that happens is you scare some people into using less of the ISP's precious bandwidth, or you generate a few calls to your outsourced customer service call center.
On the post: MPAA Threatens To Have Google Disconnected From The Internet Over File Sharing?
Re:
What is the methodology of these automated 'We detected an infringement' letters? Do they actually connect to the IP and download all or part of the file?
Many bit torrent trackers are inserting random IPs into their tables. That's how you get network printer IPs that are 'detected' or how people without computers (but cable service) are sued.
What if the IP is the external address of a NAT? There could be hundreds of hosts behind that NAT and no way to tell which it was.
Heck, it could even be a honeypot machine designed to capture malware for study in order to prevent end users from getting it.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re:
Yes, the term is called jury nullification. From my understanding (IANAL) however is that the concept has been weakened considerably. Prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys can get a juror removed if they can show that the juror is intending to do it. Neither judges nor the defense can actually mention that a jury has that power.
On the post: Reverse Engineering Lottery Scratch Tickets For Profit (But Not Fame)
Re:
The key to beating any gambling game is not to win all the time (that just generates attention), but more than your 'fair' share.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Anti-bodies.
I agree in general. But as we've seen with Egypt, there are limits to what it can route around. I think we can all imagine that if a dictator was willing, they'd be able to completely censor the Internet.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Communistic?
This is fascism. (At least the dictionary definition of fascism. There's other connotations that arguably haven't occurred yet.)
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re: Re: Re:
Unless the musicians are making mega millions, there's nothing for the parasitical middlemen (the ones that don't add any value in) to steal.
On the post: Cures For Paralysis, Diabetes And Blindness Hindered By Patents
Re:
Is money the only thing you ever think about?
I don't usually think that emotional arguments are productive, but when we're talking about curing diseases, they can be.
Maybe to me the issue of patents and medical research personal. My little sister was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 7 years old. The unadulterated fury I feel about this issue cannot be adequately described unless you have a loved one in the same situation.
It will take years or decades for cures to be developed from the research being done now. And that research is being slowed, hindered, or stopped altogether because some company has locked a critical piece up so they are the only ones to profit from it. Those years and decades may be all that my little sister has before she develops serious complications or dies.
A twisted world the freetards live in.
I'll let what I already said answer that.
On the post: The Background Story Of The NY Times' Relationship With Julian Assange
"Old" media still claiming to be unbiased
We regarded Assange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator, but he was a man who clearly had his own agenda.
The NY Times doesn't have an agenda? The Guardian? Every person and every organization has biases and agendas.
The real problem is not agendas or biases, it is believing yours don't exist - or claiming they don't.
"Fair and balanced" ? Yeah, right.
On the post: How Long Until A Lawsuit Is Filed Against eBook Trading Service?
Re: Re: Freely giving books to other to read. Hmm...
DRM.
DRM is an attempt to make digital files act like physical objects.
Publishers can't have it both ways. If they want to go digital, but lock their content up with DRM to create artificial scarcity, then they need to accept everything that goes along with it.
I think it would be a much better idea if the content providers focused on selling real scarcities instead of trying to artificially create them.
On the post: ACS:Law Apparently Gives Up For Real
Re: Hear, hear...
Agree with this. And I don't want to trivialize threats of violence. (you knew this was coming) But...
Crossley has a history of making claims that are not backed up by evidence (or is knowingly representing those that do) in an effort to generate profit. This makes the question on whether these threats actually occurred up for scrutiny.
If there are threats made against him or his family, they need to be investigated. Evidence needs to be presented. If there is evidence, the suspects still have a right to defend themselves, dispute that evidence in a court of law, and so on.
This is exactly what should have been done in every single case where someone is being accused of copyright infringement. It is not a perfect system, but its the best we have.
I'm pretty sure no judge or jury would sentence the person paying the bill for an ISP connection to jail if the only 'evidence' is a witness testimony that a bomb threat was received from IP address x.x.x.x.
Next >>