The question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not.
The question is are we going to allow people to secretly whisper things to each other where the government cannot overhear?
What about window blinds? What self respecting terrorist wouldn't keep their doors closed and blinds pulled?
If groups of people larger than 1 wish to assemble together, shouldn't they be required to register so that the government has an opportunity to show up at the arranged time to ensure that bad thoughts are not being spoken?
At least with modern technology you no longer can hear the NSA breathing, listening in on the phone. So we should be thankful for that.
Imagine if the US could ban the learning of math. That would stop the development of sophisticated cryptography. Probably even its implementation. It has the additional benefit that it would prevent sophisticated programmers potentially writing piracy applications such as Netflix and Google.
But disguise it. Let people learn math, but make sure that its presentation is dull, dry and boring enough that nobody wants to learn math. Next introduce a program that doesn't leave any poor performer behind by holding back the rest of the class to their level.
Naturally without math, interest in science will wane.
But not to worry. We will never need to worry about US students doing poorly in math and science.
If AT&T could just do its job, nobody would even be talking about net neutrality. Or title ii.
Net neutrality was a principle of the internet for a long time. Because ISPs just did their job, nobody ever worried about enshrining net neutrality into law. Now that ISPs won't do their job, it is important to make net neutrality (which was the status quo) the law of the land.
What is their job?
To deliver packets. Period. Route packets closer to their destination. Don't 'inspect' the packets. Don't modify the packet's content. Don't route it to some alternate destination. Don't change the delivery priority of packets -- UNLESS the network is congested.
Another free clue: if the network is regularly congested, then you need to improve your network.
Or lazily filed takedown notices that shoot first, ask questions later. However, the lazy rapid fire takedowns based on simplistic keyword searches are a symptom of copyright owners' mentality that everyone else should do their work for them.
Don't waste time teaching kids things that they won't need in adult life.
High School graduation requirements should require knowing how to: * use a keyboard * use Google to locate information * use important applications like photoshop * ask some geek to fix their computer * locate the best torrent sites * update facebook single handed while driving * encyclopedic knowledge of dancing with the stars
Don't ask for too much. How about just start with $100K and increment it by, say, $50 K for each subsequent bad DMCA notice.
After 20 times you're already at a million dollars.
On the 21st time, it is that same million (which means it doubled) plus a bit of growth.
Given the vast rate of bad DMCA notices, it would work just fine to have an increment applied to each brazenly false DMCA notice. The worst offenders would quickly go out of business.
Doubling it each time sounds so unfair. But something that sounds much more fair would still have the same effect.
Go to your the insurer that provides your homeowner's insurance and ask them about a rider or a policy that covers your cell phone? (Your laptop, your camera, etc.)
You may find that you really don't want the cell company's insurance scam. It has a lot of limitations. It has a high deductible. It has a high monthly cost. See what your the provider of your regular homeowner's insurance can do for you.
That confusion exists in order to allow sales people to manipulate people into higher priced plans than they need, while convincing them that they are saving money.
I seem to recall back in the 1990's when one major national cell phone network operator started running ads about how their competitors cell phone plans required a rocket scientist or something like that. Nothing has changed.
No. I think they can't see that far ahead. They actually believe that piracy is the problem.
These are dinosaurs we are talking about.
They could not even understand that Napster did not distribute any content. They thought that licensing was the conversation to have with a party that doesn't distribute any content, nor controls what content is distributed. They could have had the most fantastic distribution mechanism in history, in its infancy. Instead, lacking vision, they made the futile mistake of trying to destroy it.
Brain Implants are the answer. They should be implanted at birth. Whenever you see or hear anything copyrighted, you are automatically charged and performance rights organizations are properly compensated. This will help them to hire additional lawyers, and to discover new 'rights' that can be split out of current copyright law requiring additional licensing.
Do they want ISPs to micro-filter? That is, an ISP must understand every protocol, and micro-filter individual files, URLs, blog posts, etc?
This is infeasible for ISPs and places a legal liability upon them for something that someone else does.
Or do they want ISPs to do the easy thing and block an entire site, such as YouTube?
This is infeasible for every web site and places a legal liability upon them for something that someone else does.
Either way, what they always seem to want is for someone else to have the burden of, and legal liability of policing the internet for infringements of their content.
They already have a DMCA, which itself is an atrocity that never should have become law. Why can't they use what they begged so hard to get? Police the internet and send DMCA takedown notices? They begged and pleaded for that. They said it wouldn't be abused.
Now they want not only the moon, but the stars also? And we are to believe this won't be abused -- even if it were feasible.
It's not surprising that a bunch who makes money off the back of artists, while depriving them of the rewards of their work through the magic of Hollywood Accounting, wants everyone else to do the job of protecting their content.
Any time a local noise ordinance is violated, the proper police procedure should be to have the proper legal authorities (RIAA, MPAA, collection societies, etc) investigate whether any public performance rights license fees are required.
> You just owned a license to make a copy of that book via > the beams of light that reflect off of it and hit your eyes.
Wait . . . . . . those photons used in reading the book are not covered by 'mechanical' or other rights.
Hey! I think you've just identified a new right in copyright that needs to be collected! For the artists and authors of course.
Argument:
Those photons, once they bounce off the text of the book, now encode the copyrighted text of the book for your eyes. A special fee needs to be collected for that, beyond the compensation the author gets for merely publishing a copy of the book.
Furthermore, not all of those photons that bounced off the page will go to your eyes. Some of those photons that are subject to a license fee will scatter in many other directions. Even bouncing off other objects and then eventually into the eyes of other people on the train. Or even people not on the train. After all, a stationary person can see things inside the train as it passes. Therefore photons from the interior of the train manage to escape to stationary persons the train passes. Some of those photons may need a license due to having bounced off the page of the copyrighted book.
First we must get the Library of Congress to recognize this.
Once that is done, we need to consider photons emitted from light sources, such as television screens. If you have ever been riding a bicycle or driving a car, you have undoubtedly noticed the glow of a television through the curtains of someone's window. You might even simply notice the glow of a TV reflected off a ceiling or wall. Nonetheless, those photons may now be copyrighted and subject to licensing. Who pays? The passer by who receives the benefit of seeing those photons? Or the home owner who is allowing photons from their TV to leak into the public space, and thus creating a public performance?
Many lawyers will need to work to resolved these issues. Fortunately for us all, we can be sure that hard working organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA will diligently pursue the legal research required to determine the difficult licensing and collection issues involved. Keep up the good work guys! The licensing is getting too complicated for the rest of us.
On the post: Did David Cameron Just Say He Wants To Undermine All Encryption In The UK?
Where does it end?
What about window blinds? What self respecting terrorist wouldn't keep their doors closed and blinds pulled?
If groups of people larger than 1 wish to assemble together, shouldn't they be required to register so that the government has an opportunity to show up at the arranged time to ensure that bad thoughts are not being spoken?
At least with modern technology you no longer can hear the NSA breathing, listening in on the phone. So we should be thankful for that.
Where does it end?
On the post: Did David Cameron Just Say He Wants To Undermine All Encryption In The UK?
Re: Ban Learning Math!!!
But disguise it. Let people learn math, but make sure that its presentation is dull, dry and boring enough that nobody wants to learn math. Next introduce a program that doesn't leave any poor performer behind by holding back the rest of the class to their level.
Naturally without math, interest in science will wane.
But not to worry. We will never need to worry about US students doing poorly in math and science.
Oh, wait.
On the post: Did David Cameron Just Say He Wants To Undermine All Encryption In The UK?
Re: Ban Prime Numbers!!!
The **AA-holes want to ban certain very large numbers. (Like an mp3 file, or a video file.)
But there is an even better solution . . .
On the post: Schrodinger's Carrier: AT&T Is/Is Not A Common Carrier Depending On Who's Looking For What Reason
If AT&T could just do its job
Net neutrality was a principle of the internet for a long time. Because ISPs just did their job, nobody ever worried about enshrining net neutrality into law. Now that ISPs won't do their job, it is important to make net neutrality (which was the status quo) the law of the land.
What is their job?
To deliver packets. Period. Route packets closer to their destination. Don't 'inspect' the packets. Don't modify the packet's content. Don't route it to some alternate destination. Don't change the delivery priority of packets -- UNLESS the network is congested.
Another free clue: if the network is regularly congested, then you need to improve your network.
On the post: Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim
Copyright takedowns working as intended
Or lazily filed takedown notices that shoot first, ask questions later. However, the lazy rapid fire takedowns based on simplistic keyword searches are a symptom of copyright owners' mentality that everyone else should do their work for them.
On the post: Spanish Judge Says Use Of 'Extreme Security Measures' For Email Is Evidence Of Terrorism
Closing your window blinds
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 6: Should Kids Be Forced To Learn Coding? Or Economics? Or Stats?
Kids need to learn real life skills
High School graduation requirements should require knowing how to:
* use a keyboard
* use Google to locate information
* use important applications like photoshop
* ask some geek to fix their computer
* locate the best torrent sites
* update facebook single handed while driving
* encyclopedic knowledge of dancing with the stars
On the post: Another Day, Another Bogus Set Of DMCA Takedowns Based Solely On Keywords (This Time Hiding Legit GitHub Projects)
Re: Better idea
After 20 times you're already at a million dollars.
On the 21st time, it is that same million (which means it doubled) plus a bit of growth.
Given the vast rate of bad DMCA notices, it would work just fine to have an increment applied to each brazenly false DMCA notice. The worst offenders would quickly go out of business.
Doubling it each time sounds so unfair. But something that sounds much more fair would still have the same effect.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Admit Their Service Plans Still Far Too Confusing For Most Consumers To Actually Understand
Thinking about cell phone insurance?
You may find that you really don't want the cell company's insurance scam. It has a lot of limitations. It has a high deductible. It has a high monthly cost. See what your the provider of your regular homeowner's insurance can do for you.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Admit Their Service Plans Still Far Too Confusing For Most Consumers To Actually Understand
Competition (or lack of it)
In any market where real competition exists, the players compete on both price and service, or exit the market as they should.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Admit Their Service Plans Still Far Too Confusing For Most Consumers To Actually Understand
There's a REASON for that confusion
I seem to recall back in the 1990's when one major national cell phone network operator started running ads about how their competitors cell phone plans required a rocket scientist or something like that. Nothing has changed.
On the post: Supreme Court To Dip Its Toes Cautiously Into The Electronic Age With Free Electronic Filing System
Dear Supreme Court
Sincerely
D
On the post: Gogo Inflight Wifi Service Goes Man-In-The-Middle, Issues Fake Google SSL Certificates
Re: A more simple response
On the post: MPAA Wants Regulators To Force ISPs To Block Sites 'At The Border'
Re: Re:
These are dinosaurs we are talking about.
They could not even understand that Napster did not distribute any content. They thought that licensing was the conversation to have with a party that doesn't distribute any content, nor controls what content is distributed. They could have had the most fantastic distribution mechanism in history, in its infancy. Instead, lacking vision, they made the futile mistake of trying to destroy it.
On the post: MPAA Wants Regulators To Force ISPs To Block Sites 'At The Border'
Re: So just break the Internet, and all will be well
Too bad dinosaurs don't see an opportunity in the most fantastic distribution medium in the entire history of the human race.
The MPAA and RIAA are like the priests trying to stop the printing press.
On the post: MPAA Wants Regulators To Force ISPs To Block Sites 'At The Border'
Re: Re: Which way do they want it?
> when they want to watch it,
> and record it
> or purchase it and change formats as they see fit
Don't forget: Where they want to watch it. And on which of their many devices they want to watch.
On the post: Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
Brain Implants
On the post: MPAA Wants Regulators To Force ISPs To Block Sites 'At The Border'
Which way do they want it?
This is infeasible for ISPs and places a legal liability upon them for something that someone else does.
Or do they want ISPs to do the easy thing and block an entire site, such as YouTube?
This is infeasible for every web site and places a legal liability upon them for something that someone else does.
Either way, what they always seem to want is for someone else to have the burden of, and legal liability of policing the internet for infringements of their content.
They already have a DMCA, which itself is an atrocity that never should have become law. Why can't they use what they begged so hard to get? Police the internet and send DMCA takedown notices? They begged and pleaded for that. They said it wouldn't be abused.
Now they want not only the moon, but the stars also? And we are to believe this won't be abused -- even if it were feasible.
It's not surprising that a bunch who makes money off the back of artists, while depriving them of the rewards of their work through the magic of Hollywood Accounting, wants everyone else to do the job of protecting their content.
On the post: Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
Re:
Any time a local noise ordinance is violated, the proper police procedure should be to have the proper legal authorities (RIAA, MPAA, collection societies, etc) investigate whether any public performance rights license fees are required.
On the post: Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance
Re:
> the beams of light that reflect off of it and hit your eyes.
Wait . . . . . . those photons used in reading the book are not covered by 'mechanical' or other rights.
Hey! I think you've just identified a new right in copyright that needs to be collected! For the artists and authors of course.
Argument:
Those photons, once they bounce off the text of the book, now encode the copyrighted text of the book for your eyes. A special fee needs to be collected for that, beyond the compensation the author gets for merely publishing a copy of the book.
Furthermore, not all of those photons that bounced off the page will go to your eyes. Some of those photons that are subject to a license fee will scatter in many other directions. Even bouncing off other objects and then eventually into the eyes of other people on the train. Or even people not on the train. After all, a stationary person can see things inside the train as it passes. Therefore photons from the interior of the train manage to escape to stationary persons the train passes. Some of those photons may need a license due to having bounced off the page of the copyrighted book.
First we must get the Library of Congress to recognize this.
Once that is done, we need to consider photons emitted from light sources, such as television screens. If you have ever been riding a bicycle or driving a car, you have undoubtedly noticed the glow of a television through the curtains of someone's window. You might even simply notice the glow of a TV reflected off a ceiling or wall. Nonetheless, those photons may now be copyrighted and subject to licensing. Who pays? The passer by who receives the benefit of seeing those photons? Or the home owner who is allowing photons from their TV to leak into the public space, and thus creating a public performance?
Many lawyers will need to work to resolved these issues. Fortunately for us all, we can be sure that hard working organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA will diligently pursue the legal research required to determine the difficult licensing and collection issues involved. Keep up the good work guys! The licensing is getting too complicated for the rest of us.
Next >>