Everyone will have to come up with their own words now.....
I guess this is the end game of owning ideas. From now on everyone will have to come up with their own words to express their own ideas. Anything else makes you a thief.
If yes;
You owe me royalties for thinking my patent pending language.
(I'll waive them on the condition that you don't turn me in for using someone else's idea ;)
If no;
What exactly is the point of that?!?@#!?
Words, language, only works if we use shared utterances. Otherwise no one else can understand what you're saying.
Since by definition every word you use has to be known by someone else first (how else did _you_ learn it?) we either have to give up the silly notion that we can own words and phrases or just stop communicating. Admittedly for some people that sounds like a good idea.
If Taylor Swift reused a phrase from Matt Nathanson, who cares? Songs are written about other songs, about poems, about books.
"Wuthering Heights" the book by Emily Brontė lead to a songs by Kate Bush. She was inspired by the 1970 film of the movie. Some of the lyrics are quotes of the book. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuthering_Heights_%28song%29 ) I guess the Brontė estate should get to suing. Perhaps people just weren't that silly in the late 70's (clothing not withstanding).
The sooner we get over the collective delusion that we can _own_ words or ideas the better off we as a species will be.
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
That should read;
"By granting monopoly rights to content creators for infinity minus a day we get these kind of situations."
The constitution says "for a limited time" and those helpful folks at the Supreme Court have ruled that "infinity minus a day" is limited enough to qualify.
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) already allows choice.
You wrote;
" I think it's reasonable to update it to allow for things like letting people choose to let Netflix and social networks share info on what movies they've watched -- just like the can choose to show what music they listen to."
I think you are operating under a misunderstanding of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). As the law currently stands users can _choose_ to share their video viewing information. That isn't the _problem_ that Netflix and Facebook (a.k.a Big Business [BB]) wants to _correct_.
The main problem with the VPPA (in the eyes of BB) is that it prohibits "frictionless" sharing. VPPA is _opt_in_ (no just turning it on and hoping you don't find the 'off' switch). It requires _informed_consent_ (no burying in on page 78 written in legalese that a Supreme Court justice would have trouble parsing) and it _can't_be_changed_unilaterally_ by BB, as just about every _agreement_ these days that states 'subject to change without notice' does).
People are legally allowed to share video information from NetFlix to Facebook for specific purposes under the VPPA. It's just that they are afraid that people wouldn't agree if they were to actually be given a choice. BB is only interested in getting their hands on that data for uses that have little to do with letting your Facebook friends know what old movies and television shows you've been watching. If that's all it was, they could have done it already.
If anything we should be applying VPPA privacy safeguards more broadly, not trying to scale them back.
Currently your video rentals have more privacy protection than practically any other information about you. More than your emails, more than your cell phone, more even than your medical records.
The ACLU and EFF were correct to be upset by the combination of these too bills. One to strengthen privacy protections tied to one that would weaken them.
Re: Re: So, Sat. TV is free to anyone who can decode it?
So are you're saying is that if someone drops a puzzle in your lap (broadcasts it into your house/yard) you aren't allowed to solve that problem legally?
You seem to be saying that it's illegal to figure things out.
After all that's all an encryption is. It's a code, a puzzle.
How tough does the puzzle (encryption) have to be to make it illegal? Since using a simple code, converting it to a 'standard set' of ones and zeros is perfectly legal according to this judge. If I shifted each letter 13 places (ROT13) is that 'encrypted' enough? What if I just inverted all the bits? Used XOR? Wrote all my packets in Esperanto?
It all makes perfect sense if you realize that the people pushing TPP want as many countries as possible to join the _completed_ agreement. The last thing they want is anyone _outside_ of the select group _negotiating_ the silly thing.
If that was the case, they could have used any number of existing organizations (WIPO for example).
Canada and Mexico were invited to _ratify_ the TPP when it's all done. If they can get them to agree to do so (sight unseen) they are probably hoping it will put more pressure on other countries to do the same.
I could be mistaken, but I thought that the various alternative browsers available for the iPhone were _true_ browsers in the same fashion as Safari. Don't most/all of them rely on some server farm someplace else to preprocess the web pages for the application?
That of course supposed that companies are actually _doing_ any research in this area.
Most of the time, actual research is done by Universities. Commercial companies then either write patent application off of someone else's research, or 'licenses' the right to commercially exploit it from a gullible researcher.
The end result is that researchers and other scientists are encouraged to hoard their data/results/etc. This leads to _less_ research being done greatly _slowing_ the pace of scientific progress. Just to add insult to injury, by erecting toll booths to basic medical knowledge, fewer people can afford to be helped.
Plenty of research has been and will be done without a mythical patent paycheck dangling at the end.
It's the perennial lie that gatekeepers (and patent/copyright attorney's) keep reiterating.
Claim:
Without patents - research won't get done. Innovation will slow or stop completely.
Fact:
With patents - research is encumbered. It's more difficult and goes against the scientific method. Innovation is slowed by unneeded lawsuits, complicated license deals, rent seeking by non-practitioners.
Claim:
Without copyrights - nothing creative will be produced. If people can't be guaranteed a return on every use of a copyrighted work for nearly a century no one will bother to create anything.
Fact:
With copyrights - less original material can _legally_ be produced. Creativity existed long before copyrights were introduced. Creativity is greater in those areas with lax or non-existent copyright laws. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is the interplay of the creative mind, the popular culture and everything that's come before. Most current creative works are illegal in jurisdictions with the strongest copyright laws. Creativity occurs in spite of copyrights not because of it.
Actually, if you read any of the technical documentation for the updated scanners, they still capture nakey pics of everyone.
The only change is that they no longer display the actual image on the monitor that's out in the open. It's still captured, it's still stored, and if they've gotten what they asked for in the last request for production the new machines are capable of transmitting the actual (not gumby) image across the network to another location.
Biggest problem is changing the terms after you've paid for something.
I think the biggest problem is the one sided nature of it all. Google reserves the right (like practically every other company out there) to change it's terms whenever it wants for whatever reason it wants.
That's bad enough when you are using what's essentially a free service; search, gmail, etc. The bigger problem I see is changing things on you after you've bought something. If I'm paying for Google Docs,Gmail, etc. then what gives Google to change the terms of my contract unilaterally?
If I bought an Android phone and am locked into a two year contract with my carrier based in part on Google's privacy policy at the time, what gives them the right to unilaterally change it?
I still haven't seen an answer to these two situations. Telling people that they can just stop using Google doesn't really cut it in these cases.
Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
Regardless of whether or not you think companies like Google should looked into by the FTC, the fact is that they did. Google agreed to a Consent Order with the FTC. The FTC should enforce it.
The fact that Google _used_ to keep information about you siloed but now won't _is_ a material change.
The fact that Google will take all of the data you agreed to share with them under one set of privacy promises and _reuse_ them under another _less_ private policy is another.
Google _won't_ let you delete or otherwise remove _all_ the data you've already shared with them under the previous policy. Even Google admits that they'll keep logs and *other_data* to 'improve their services'. Even if you ask them to delete it. So just stop using them doesn't help with the historic data.
Finally, the 600 pink elephant in the room, Android users. What are you supposed to do if you purchased an Android phone and are locked into a contract, based on Google's prior privacy policies? Are you suggesting that you should just 'stop using Google'? And do what with your phone? Throw it away? Keep paying your monthly statements?
Google's already backtracking on the changes for it's government contracts. A group with someone in power to look out for them. That's what the FTC is _supposed_ to be doing of the rest of us.
When you wrote;
"Simple solution for EPICs problem: STOP using Google."
You've missed the point. EPIC realizes that people aren't forced to use Google. What EPIC is complaining about is that the FTC is _supposed_ to be actually _enforcing_ Consent Orders. Why bother having an FTC if it doesn't actually _do_ anything?
So how would EPIC switching away from using Google's products solve their problem of getting a government agency to actual enforce it's own rules?
Actually, I believe that Congress has made it clear that it wants the FTC to enforce all of its _final_decisions_.
Regardless of what you think of Google or EPIC, Google was recently called out for it's sometimes questionable privacy practices (Buzz roll out I believe). The FTC ordered and Google supposedly agreed to be bound to a Consent Order (CO) regarding to it's privacy practices. All that EPIC is doing is asking that the FTC actually enforce that Consent Order. From what I've read of the CO, what Google is planning on doing come March 1st seems to fairly blatantly go against that Consent Order.
We can't with a straight face complain about government agencies not enforcing the rules against unsympathetic companies (RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/etc.) while at the same time giving favored companies a pass.
I remember many years ago trying to purchase the new album from a European band. Even though they had videos from the album in the top 10 of MTV Europe (yea, back when MTV actually played music and I actually paid for television). Even though the entire album was available for download through less than legal means and was talked about not only on the band's own website but elsewhere. Every music store that I approached (O.K. you can stop laughing, I told you this was a few years ago) not only wouldn't sell me this album, but insisted that no such album existed. One went so far as to accuse me of making it up.
Searched Amazon.com, no such album exists. Amazon.co.uk, yep. Amazon's French, Italian, German sites, yep there it is. I ended up buying it from their U.K. site. British English is still closer to the American variety than Italian, French, or German. Even with the unfavorable exchange rate of U.S. dollars to British pounds and shipping it still ended up costing, within a few cents, of what it would have cost to buy it locally.
Moral or the story, customers are willing to pay for it if you are willing to sell it (all other things being reasonable of course). The difference between Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk is two characters. That's what customers think of territories/regions/and other artificial barriers to trade.
Perhaps this is just a plan to keep people from defecting.... ;>
Perhaps it's all part of Facebook's master plan to fight off competitors like Google+.
If they claim that your personal data is a Trade Secret, then perhaps they are hoping to keep you from illegally sharing it with their competitors..... ;>
The bigger they are the easier they need to make it to avoid.
Google is big...
Yes, you can always use another search engine, but....the bigger they get the harder it is to avoid them.
Personally the only thing I think that needs to happen, now that Google is so big and successful, is an easier way to avoid them.
At this point, even if you wanted to avoid Google, you would have a hard time of it.
So you use Bing instead of Google for search, well every web page that is using Google Ads or Google analytics is still keeping tabs on you.
So you use Yahoo Mail instead of GMail, Google is still going through all of the emails that either come from other people with GMail or get sent to people with GMail. The bigger they get the more people will be using GMail and the harder it will be to avoid them.
If you have an Android phone, good luck trying to use a competitor's mapping service. Last I checked they _required_ you to have a GMail account.
If you have a wireless router, Google wants to force you to 'Opt-Out' of them tracking it.
Can you see where this is heading? At some point, unless Google is forced to obey such things as the 'Do not track' header (which they have been adamantly opposed to), or move some of their things to an opt-in basis, you won't be able to avoid their tracking of you.
Phone vendors should be able to offer alternatives to Google Maps on an Android phone without worrying about Google putting the screws to them. GMail should _not_ be a requirement for all Android phone users, or even Android developers.
Where Google is getting into trouble is the irresistible desire to improperly use their success in one area as a club to force people to do things their way in another.
On the post: Is Using A Single Lyric From A Musician You're A Fan Of 'Theft' Or 'An Homage'?
Everyone will have to come up with their own words now.....
Let's see how that works;
"Fo muvh eadvofj. R04fj2dadOIHfq24 IEUrwq03 OIF- q3w89re roif3r oar30hf oyawer."
Anyone understand me?
If yes;
You owe me royalties for thinking my patent pending language.
(I'll waive them on the condition that you don't turn me in for using someone else's idea ;)
If no;
What exactly is the point of that?!?@#!?
Words, language, only works if we use shared utterances. Otherwise no one else can understand what you're saying.
Since by definition every word you use has to be known by someone else first (how else did _you_ learn it?) we either have to give up the silly notion that we can own words and phrases or just stop communicating. Admittedly for some people that sounds like a good idea.
If Taylor Swift reused a phrase from Matt Nathanson, who cares? Songs are written about other songs, about poems, about books.
"Wuthering Heights" the book by Emily Brontė lead to a songs by Kate Bush. She was inspired by the 1970 film of the movie. Some of the lyrics are quotes of the book. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuthering_Heights_%28song%29 ) I guess the Brontė estate should get to suing. Perhaps people just weren't that silly in the late 70's (clothing not withstanding).
The sooner we get over the collective delusion that we can _own_ words or ideas the better off we as a species will be.
On the post: Amazon Wipes Customer's Account, Locks All Ebooks, Says 'Find A New Retailer' When She Asks Why
Re: Re: "If you didn't take the hint [fill in latest corporate policy]"
"By granting monopoly rights to content creators for infinity minus a day we get these kind of situations."
The constitution says "for a limited time" and those helpful folks at the Supreme Court have ruled that "infinity minus a day" is limited enough to qualify.
Just a thought.
On the post: Law Enforcement Officials Freak Out About Possibility Of Having To Get Warrants To Read Your Email
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) already allows choice.
" I think it's reasonable to update it to allow for things like letting people choose to let Netflix and social networks share info on what movies they've watched -- just like the can choose to show what music they listen to."
I think you are operating under a misunderstanding of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). As the law currently stands users can _choose_ to share their video viewing information. That isn't the _problem_ that Netflix and Facebook (a.k.a Big Business [BB]) wants to _correct_.
The main problem with the VPPA (in the eyes of BB) is that it prohibits "frictionless" sharing. VPPA is _opt_in_ (no just turning it on and hoping you don't find the 'off' switch). It requires _informed_consent_ (no burying in on page 78 written in legalese that a Supreme Court justice would have trouble parsing) and it _can't_be_changed_unilaterally_ by BB, as just about every _agreement_ these days that states 'subject to change without notice' does).
People are legally allowed to share video information from NetFlix to Facebook for specific purposes under the VPPA. It's just that they are afraid that people wouldn't agree if they were to actually be given a choice. BB is only interested in getting their hands on that data for uses that have little to do with letting your Facebook friends know what old movies and television shows you've been watching. If that's all it was, they could have done it already.
If anything we should be applying VPPA privacy safeguards more broadly, not trying to scale them back.
Currently your video rentals have more privacy protection than practically any other information about you. More than your emails, more than your cell phone, more even than your medical records.
The ACLU and EFF were correct to be upset by the combination of these too bills. One to strengthen privacy protections tied to one that would weaken them.
On the post: Judge Says Sniffing Unencrypted WiFi Networks Is Not Wiretapping
Re: Re: So, Sat. TV is free to anyone who can decode it?
You seem to be saying that it's illegal to figure things out.
After all that's all an encryption is. It's a code, a puzzle.
How tough does the puzzle (encryption) have to be to make it illegal? Since using a simple code, converting it to a 'standard set' of ones and zeros is perfectly legal according to this judge. If I shifted each letter 13 places (ROT13) is that 'encrypted' enough? What if I just inverted all the bits? Used XOR? Wrote all my packets in Esperanto?
On the post: Canada And Mexico Not Allowed To Observe TPP Negotations, Even Though They're Joining Them
The want signatories not negotiators
If that was the case, they could have used any number of existing organizations (WIPO for example).
Canada and Mexico were invited to _ratify_ the TPP when it's all done. If they can get them to agree to do so (sight unseen) they are probably hoping it will put more pressure on other countries to do the same.
On the post: Old Habits Or New Envy? Microsoft Bans 3rd Party Browsers On Windows RT
I thought that wasn't strictly true
On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Software Functionality Is Not Subject To Copyright
Tell that to Google.....
But someone should really tell Oracle that copyright doesn't cover API/SSO/ideas behind the code.
As for the lawyers, as Upton Sinclair has been quoted as saying;
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
On the post: Did Congress Really Not Pay Attention To What Happened With SOPA? CISPA Ignorance Is Astounding
Congressional Staff: Unaware of the particulars of this legislation...
Staff member says; "Really? I'm not familiar with this piece of legislation."
That about sums it up. Like SOPA/PIPA/, our elected representatives vote/cosponsor/sponsor the bills they're _told_ to.
Apparently, the less they know about a particular piece of legislation the better.
On the post: Forget SOPA, You Should Be Worried About This Cybersecurity Bill
Who are the cosponsors?
On the post: Huge Ruling: Court Rejects Medical Diagnostic Patent
Re:
Most of the time, actual research is done by Universities. Commercial companies then either write patent application off of someone else's research, or 'licenses' the right to commercially exploit it from a gullible researcher.
The end result is that researchers and other scientists are encouraged to hoard their data/results/etc. This leads to _less_ research being done greatly _slowing_ the pace of scientific progress. Just to add insult to injury, by erecting toll booths to basic medical knowledge, fewer people can afford to be helped.
Plenty of research has been and will be done without a mythical patent paycheck dangling at the end.
It's the perennial lie that gatekeepers (and patent/copyright attorney's) keep reiterating.
Claim:
Without patents - research won't get done. Innovation will slow or stop completely.
Fact:
With patents - research is encumbered. It's more difficult and goes against the scientific method. Innovation is slowed by unneeded lawsuits, complicated license deals, rent seeking by non-practitioners.
Claim:
Without copyrights - nothing creative will be produced. If people can't be guaranteed a return on every use of a copyrighted work for nearly a century no one will bother to create anything.
Fact:
With copyrights - less original material can _legally_ be produced. Creativity existed long before copyrights were introduced. Creativity is greater in those areas with lax or non-existent copyright laws. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is the interplay of the creative mind, the popular culture and everything that's come before. Most current creative works are illegal in jurisdictions with the strongest copyright laws. Creativity occurs in spite of copyrights not because of it.
On the post: Slow Down TSA Lynch Mob: That Naked Scanner Expose Video Is Exaggerated & Old News
Still taking nakey images......
The only change is that they no longer display the actual image on the monitor that's out in the open. It's still captured, it's still stored, and if they've gotten what they asked for in the last request for production the new machines are capable of transmitting the actual (not gumby) image across the network to another location.
On the post: Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
Biggest problem is changing the terms after you've paid for something.
That's bad enough when you are using what's essentially a free service; search, gmail, etc. The bigger problem I see is changing things on you after you've bought something. If I'm paying for Google Docs,Gmail, etc. then what gives Google to change the terms of my contract unilaterally?
If I bought an Android phone and am locked into a two year contract with my carrier based in part on Google's privacy policy at the time, what gives them the right to unilaterally change it?
I still haven't seen an answer to these two situations. Telling people that they can just stop using Google doesn't really cut it in these cases.
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
The fact that Google _used_ to keep information about you siloed but now won't _is_ a material change.
The fact that Google will take all of the data you agreed to share with them under one set of privacy promises and _reuse_ them under another _less_ private policy is another.
Google _won't_ let you delete or otherwise remove _all_ the data you've already shared with them under the previous policy. Even Google admits that they'll keep logs and *other_data* to 'improve their services'. Even if you ask them to delete it. So just stop using them doesn't help with the historic data.
Finally, the 600 pink elephant in the room, Android users. What are you supposed to do if you purchased an Android phone and are locked into a contract, based on Google's prior privacy policies? Are you suggesting that you should just 'stop using Google'? And do what with your phone? Throw it away? Keep paying your monthly statements?
Google's already backtracking on the changes for it's government contracts. A group with someone in power to look out for them. That's what the FTC is _supposed_ to be doing of the rest of us.
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Missing the point (Re: )
"Simple solution for EPICs problem: STOP using Google."
You've missed the point. EPIC realizes that people aren't forced to use Google. What EPIC is complaining about is that the FTC is _supposed_ to be actually _enforcing_ Consent Orders. Why bother having an FTC if it doesn't actually _do_ anything?
So how would EPIC switching away from using Google's products solve their problem of getting a government agency to actual enforce it's own rules?
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
It just might have to
Regardless of what you think of Google or EPIC, Google was recently called out for it's sometimes questionable privacy practices (Buzz roll out I believe). The FTC ordered and Google supposedly agreed to be bound to a Consent Order (CO) regarding to it's privacy practices. All that EPIC is doing is asking that the FTC actually enforce that Consent Order. From what I've read of the CO, what Google is planning on doing come March 1st seems to fairly blatantly go against that Consent Order.
We can't with a straight face complain about government agencies not enforcing the rules against unsympathetic companies (RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/etc.) while at the same time giving favored companies a pass.
Can we?
On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions
Been there done that....
Searched Amazon.com, no such album exists. Amazon.co.uk, yep. Amazon's French, Italian, German sites, yep there it is. I ended up buying it from their U.K. site. British English is still closer to the American variety than Italian, French, or German. Even with the unfavorable exchange rate of U.S. dollars to British pounds and shipping it still ended up costing, within a few cents, of what it would have cost to buy it locally.
Moral or the story, customers are willing to pay for it if you are willing to sell it (all other things being reasonable of course). The difference between Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk is two characters. That's what customers think of territories/regions/and other artificial barriers to trade.
Just my $0.02
On the post: Facebook Says Some of Your Personal Data Is Its 'Trade Secrets or Intellectual Property'
Perhaps this is just a plan to keep people from defecting.... ;>
If they claim that your personal data is a Trade Secret, then perhaps they are hoping to keep you from illegally sharing it with their competitors..... ;>
On the post: EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark
Recognize, yes. Trust..... I'm not so sure.
On the post: Even If You Cancel Your OnStar Service, The Company Will Still Track (And Sell) Your Location
One more reason to go strictly 'OPT-IN"
As in, unless the customer explicitly "OPTS-IN" to have On-Star track their movements, then they can't legally do it.
That would kill this particular example of over reaching creepiness dead on arrival.
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
The bigger they are the easier they need to make it to avoid.
Yes, you can always use another search engine, but....the bigger they get the harder it is to avoid them.
Personally the only thing I think that needs to happen, now that Google is so big and successful, is an easier way to avoid them.
At this point, even if you wanted to avoid Google, you would have a hard time of it.
So you use Bing instead of Google for search, well every web page that is using Google Ads or Google analytics is still keeping tabs on you.
So you use Yahoo Mail instead of GMail, Google is still going through all of the emails that either come from other people with GMail or get sent to people with GMail. The bigger they get the more people will be using GMail and the harder it will be to avoid them.
If you have an Android phone, good luck trying to use a competitor's mapping service. Last I checked they _required_ you to have a GMail account.
If you have a wireless router, Google wants to force you to 'Opt-Out' of them tracking it.
Can you see where this is heading? At some point, unless Google is forced to obey such things as the 'Do not track' header (which they have been adamantly opposed to), or move some of their things to an opt-in basis, you won't be able to avoid their tracking of you.
Phone vendors should be able to offer alternatives to Google Maps on an Android phone without worrying about Google putting the screws to them. GMail should _not_ be a requirement for all Android phone users, or even Android developers.
Where Google is getting into trouble is the irresistible desire to improperly use their success in one area as a club to force people to do things their way in another.
Next >>