Re: Re: Maine does it right....(Re: Re: slow down)
Dan,
Usually while traveling on I95. Everywhere from Portsmouth to Bangor. Of course sometimes there _is_ an officer there (usually around Labor Day, July 4th, etc. whenever there's an increase in drunk driving) just to keep you honest.
They have a more enlightened method of handling 'Work Zones' (areas where people are working on the road) too. If there are people _actually_ working they post those "Work Zone ahead / fines doubled" signs. When the workers go home they take down or cover them up. I've seen equipment and pylons, but no workers. They've covered up the signs, so it's no longer a 'work zone'. One night, when there were people actually out working on the road, there was a police car with all his lights on parked about a mile before the area. This would cause people to slow down and helped keep the workers safe.
New York state on the other hand..... I've seen "Work Zone / fines doubled" signs posted apparently at random. A work zone starts, no workers, not even a barrel or a pylon. One to ten miles later "Word Zone Ends" sign. The only 'worker' was a police cruiser hiding somewhere in that stretch of road.
Maine - speeding/ work zones: policed to keep everyone safer.
New York (apparently Florida) - speeding / work zones: policed to maximize revenue.
Actually I think the state of Maine does a pretty good job in that respect. I've often seen police cars (state police ones usually) parked in a median with no one actually in the car.
People see a police car and usually slow down. There isn't anyone there to actually hand out tickets, but this has the added benefit of not wasting police manpower.
From a revenue generating standpoint it's a complete failure. From an improving public safety standpoint, I think it's remarkably enlightened.
Patents may no longer work, but I think once upon a time they did.
If you came up with a new drug, a new bullet transport mechanism for a hand gun, a way to better separate the cotton seeds from the cotton fibers it was worth it to have your specify _exactly_ how you did it. In that way others could repeat/improve upon it. In exchange the government gave you the sole legal ability to control that technology for a couple of years. Sure beat having to constantly 'reinvent the wheel'.
This is why you couldn't patent; nature, math, ideas.
It had to be truly novel to someone _skilled_in_the_field_. No sense letting someone patent something that people would come up with anyway.
It had to be described it in sufficient detail for someone skilled in the art to build it, using _just_the_patent_application_. No sense giving patent protection to something that wasn't detailed or complete enough for say another gun manufacturer to build.
Combine that with the fact that technology progressed _very_slowly_, it wasn't that bad of a trade.
Unfortunately many things have combined to make them more trouble then what they're worth.
Technology progresses _much_ faster than it used to.
Patents are allowed for 'ideas' rather than specific implementations. (i.e. 'using a computer...' to do anything we already do without one.)
Patents are allowed for; nature (i.e. gene/existing plants), math (i.e using a particular sorting algorithm).
Patents are allowed for things that are obvious or a natural progression to someone skilled in the field (pretty much anything that suffers from multiple simultaneous invention).
And most damming, patents are awarded for things that purposely written so ambiguously that it's completely useless for the express purpose of allowing someone skilled in the field to replicate and build off of.
Of course that makes it perfect for suing other over.
As an example here's a portion of Oracle's '507 patent that it's using to sue Google over android.
Claim 20:
A method for acquiring and reviewing a body of information, wherein the body of information includes a plurality of segments, each segment representing a defined set of information in the body of information, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring data representing the body of information; generating a display of a first segment of the body of information from data that is part of the stored data; comparing data representing a segment of the body of information to data representing a different segment of the body of information to determine whether, according to one or more predetermined criteria, the compared segments are related; and generating a display of a portion of, or a representation of, a second segment of the body of information from data that is part of the stored data, wherein the display of the portion or representation of the second segment is generated in response to the display of a first segment to which the second segment is related.
Tell me that's clear enough so that someone skilled in the art can replicate the _exact_ invention that the patent was granted for. This isn't a claim to advance the state of progress, it's one to retard the state of progress, while unjustly enriching lawyers.
It's true of sporting events, but thanks to your ever greedy corporate maximalists, it's now illegal to make your own recording of a live music performance.
If we are talking about culture or creativity, and you are looking for examples of how it flourishes _without_ copyright....
Fashion - the biggest one that comes to mind.
Food (i.e. Recipes)
both evidence a phenomenal amount of creativity and neither are covered by copyright.
Copyright was originally envisioned as _a_ incentive, not the _only_ incentive to creating works. Originally most of the works that people think about when talking about copyrights (music, movies) weren't even covered.
Unfortunately, never content to pass up a profitable government monopoly, more and more things became _protected_ for longer and longer periods of time with larger penalties. Were things produced _without_ copyright protection? Of course, look at Mozart, or Plato, or da Vinci. Copyright just locked up more and more culture into fewer and fewer hands.
"February 3, 1831 ...Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. [note performance not protected]
"August 18, 1856 Dramatic compositions added to protected works. "
"March 3, 1865 Photographs and photographic negatives added to protected works."
"July 8, 1870 ...Works of art added to protected works. Act reserved to authors the right to create certain derivative works including translations and dramatizations."[first time derivative works protected]
"January 6, 1897 Music protected against unauthorized public performance." [Performance rights not protected until 100 years after copyright established]
"August 24, 1912 Motion pictures, previously registered as photographs, added to classes of protected works."
"January 1, 1953 Recording and performing rights extended to nondramatic literary works."
"February 15, 1972 Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date."
"March 10, 1974 United States became a member of the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, which came into force on April 18, 1973."
"December 12, 1980 Copyright law amended regarding computer programs."
"October 4, 1984 ...Grants the owner of copyright in a sound recording the right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes." [the start of prohibiting people from doing what they want to with what they have legally purchased]
"November 8, 1984 Federal statutory protection for mask works became available under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act...."
"December 1, 1990 ...Grants the owner of copyright in computer programs the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of the program for direct or indirect commercial purposes."[even software isn't safe from after sale restrictions]
"December 1, 1990 Protection extended to architectural works. ...Grants to visual artists certain moral rights of attribution and integrity."[who says we don't respect _moral_ rights?]
December 8, 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright to certain foreign works under protection in the source country but in the public domain in the United States [removing works from the public domain? presently being fought in court]; repealed sunset of the Software Rental Amendments Act[copyright restrictions always go in one direction]; and created legal measures to prohibit the unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings of live musical performances and music videos. [now even _your_own_recordings_ of live events are punished]
November 16, 1997
The No Electronic Theft Act defined “financial gain” in relation to copyright infringement and set penalties for willfully infringing a copyright either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means phonorecords of a certain value. [Now commercial penalties are levied against non commercial personal use copying]
Nonsensical laws return nonsensical results... and this surprises who?
When you get nonsensical laws past you shouldn't be surprised when violating them returns nonsensical results.
Pre-No Electronic Theft Act (1997) she wouldn't have been charged with anything. Infringing copyright for personal use wasn't a crime. You could legally copy your albums, make mix tapes and trade those with your friends. As long as you didn't do it for financial gain it was legal. The only difference from where I sit is that pre-internet, it was cumbersome to make copies and/or swap them with others. Post internet it's almost impossible not to make copies and share.
When those in charge found out that they couldn't actually prosecute people for swapping/exchanging/sharing copyrighted materials for personal use they did what every red blooded American company does. They bought themselves some favorable legislation. Complete with over the top alleged damage amounts. Overnight, what pre-internet people took for granted became illegal. The excessive statutory damage amounts, that were only meant to apply to commercial infringers (remember pre-NET Act personal non-commercial wasn't illegal) now applied to teen-aged Texas cheerleaders, and mothers on welfare.
First stop, repeal the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997. Then dismantle the rest of these 'Intellectual Property' laws that criminalize large swaths of the citizenry and contribute to the trampling of our constitutional rights, not to mention the loss of jobs, innovation, it's costing the U.S. economy.
"The case of United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), has drawn attention to current law’s shortcomings. David LaMacchia, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology described by the court as a “computer hacker,” id. at 536, created and operated electronic bulletin boards on the Internet and encouraged users to upload and download copies of popular copyrighted commercial software. The illegal copying that took place on the bulletin boards resulted in alleged losses to the copyright owners of over one million dollars. Because LaMacchia lacked a commercial motive, however, the government charged him with wire fraud rather than criminal copyright infringement. Id. at 541-42. The court dismissed the indictment, holding that copyright infringement can only be prosecuted under the Copyright Act. Id. at 545 (relying on Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985))."
It sure sounds good that they are going to display 'stick figures' on their millimeter wave machines. Unfortunately, it's not being installed on their more problematic x-ray machines. Also, they are still storing nudie pics of you and your loved ones.
IF they were serious about privacy, then they would build these machines so that they were incapable of storing any images, and deleted the actual image as soon as the computer finished analysis. Instead they still store them and the requirements for new ones include high speed network links.
IF they were serious about our health, then they would decommission the problematic back scatter x-ray machines.
and finally IF they were serious about improving airport security they would focus on things that might actually make us safer (reinforced cockpits, banning obvious weapons, perhaps a few bomb sniffing dogs) instead of abusing the citizenry, shredding our constitutional rights, wasting billions of dollars we can't actually afford, and otherwise making air travel a miserable experience.
(reference to ACLU page on the same topic)
"A further question is whether the raw nude images remain in any way accessible to operators, which would mean one of the privacy threats posed by these machines – the “leakage” of images into the public domain – would remain. The machines are designed to store the images, even if they don’t show them. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, and effective oversight measures need to be in place to prevent abuse.
It is also worth noting that the new software is being installed only in millimeter wave machines, and not in scanners that use backscatter x-ray technology, which constitute about half of the scanners in service. The TSA says it is working on similar software for the backscatter machines. Note that health questions have also been raised concerning the backscatter x-ray machines (which look like a wall that you stand against, as opposed to the millimeter wave machines which are a glass booth you step inside).
Then who exactly commited criminal infringement? (Re: )
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the government still has to prove that someone used the seized domain named to commit criminal copyright infringement.
The best they've got is that lots of individuals may have committed civil copyright infringement. Puerto 80 may have 'aided and abetted' said alleged civil infringement.
At the end of the day it's still a case of the government abusing the law to appease private corporate interests that just happen to make sizable campaign contributions.
Response to Apple RE: DMCA exception iPhone unlocking applicable
It seems to me that the reasoning that made unlocking your iPhone an exemption from the DMCA would be very applicable here. According to Apple you would be violating the DMCA if you unlocked your iPhone to use another carrier (not like you really had much choice in the US) or install and run software unapproved by Apple.
The reasoning, namely that the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions were there to protect a copyrighted work itself rather than as a tool to prevent end users from doing what they would otherwise be legally entitled to do with the hardware they purchased. If you had to copy or otherwise modify a copyrighted work to do so, that didn't run afoul of the DMCA.
Hopefully someone will point to that well thought out response in this case.
As Humpty Dumpty was wont to say (In Through the Looking Glass);
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' "
At least Humpty relented and tells Alice what 'he' means... our _transparent_ administration won't even do that....
"....and by voluntarily[emphasis mine] being searched, nobody's rights are being stripped."
Perhaps you would have a point if it was in any way voluntary. I have yet to hear about any airline traveler that said; "Please Mr. TSA man touch me in a morally inappropriate way." and then went on to complain about it.
If you enter the screening area the TSA reserves the right to 'screen' you. Don't even start with the, '... well you volunteered when you decided to fly." nonsense. Because if you go to fly and they say they want to assault you, even if you change your mind and decide not to fly they still reserve the right to assault you.
So the original poster did have a point, it's your response that I found rather pointless.
Knee jerk laws are bad, but we do need to establish the rules of the road.
I agree that knee jerk laws are generally a bad idea. Having said that I think there _should_be_ a base line level of operations established by law.
Getting hacked is the cost of doing business on the internet, that's a given.
The occasional kitchen fire is the cost of doing business as a restaurant. We have laws that minimize the number of kitchen fires and the damage that can occur when they do happen. We regulate what can be stored where, the maximum number of people allowed and establish evacuation routes. Requirements for fire extinguishers, type and placement. There are rules about who must be notified and how soon. Sure it's a cost of doing business, but we expect commercial kitchens to live up to a certain minimum standard. You follow the standard, bad things are less likely to happen and when they do they will probably be less severe. If it turns out worse then at least you weren't negligent.
We need laws that state the minimums for operating a commercial business on the internet. You don't store spare propane tanks over the stoves in a restaurant, you don't store users passwords as plain text. You need to maintain at least this (some defined) level of security. You need to notify these (some defined) people within this (some defined) period of time in the event of a breach.
We are seeing some of it starting, such as the VISA PCI DSS requirements, but they are mostly voluntary. We needs laws that establish a baseline, backed up by penalties with REAL TEETH. So that it isn't cheaper to ignore them and consider whatever token fine amount as 'the cost of doing business'.
Real privacy and consumer protection laws. Real commercial baselines.
Until that happens we can expect to see more internet versions of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)
If that's your standard, then they should stop now.
If your requirement for something to replace inappropriately assaulting the citizenry is;
"Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons..."
Then the TSA should stop immediately. Since it's already been shown that their procedures fall far short of 100% fool-proof way of detecting, well anything.
It's hard to make things 'fool-proof' as those fools are just so darn clever.
Regardless of the state of the resource you are already paying for it. The point of contention is the ISP wanting to charge you _again_ if you choose to use what you've _already_ paid for in another way.
To use your bike analogy;
If you ride your bike around your block that's O.K., but it you use it to go to and from school/work/the library that's theft because you're depriving the owner (yourself) of access to your bike. Since you're bike's a finite resource that's stealing.
Ummm... no that doesn't make any sense. Especially when in the bike analogy, if you paid the bike manufacturer an additional "riding outside my neighborhood" fee, then it wouldn't be 'stealing' anymore.
Yep, that whole finite vs. infinite dimension really clears things up.
Went away with analog cable, coming back with digital
I'm not sure where you've been, but Cable companies haven't been able to charge per television for ages. They _used_to_ just like Ma Bell used to charge you per telephone handset.
Combine the restriction against per television charges with 'cable ready' T.V. and VCR's and it's the same price for 1 or 100 televisions.
If you look carefully you'll see the digital cable television _isn't_ priced per television, but _per_set_top_box_. Of course you _need_ one set top box per television, so they are indirectly charging you per television.
Yet another reason, other than high per device rental fees, that the industry's fighting (rather successfully) against any plan to have 'cable ready' digital televisions.
A problem I see with your proposal is that 'RedBox' level of pricing isn't really reasonable. It's the same problem with 'Itunes' level of pricing.
Sure $.99 a song ....sounds reasonable. Until you realize that people are carrying around players (that can cost less than $50) which are capable of holding 10,000 songs or more. To fill up that player at $.99 a song, you are looking at around $10,000. Suddenly that $.99 a song isn't all that reasonable.
It's the same thing with video/TV. $1/video $8/year for television content, sounds reasonable. If you watch a couple of 'videos' a day (and who decides what constitutes 'a video'? A movie? An episode of a television program? A single music -video-?) You're already talking $60/month.
$8/year for what? Everything by CBS & affiliates (not terribly likely)? Everything for a single television channel? Every episode for a single show?
Wow, in that world high priced digital cable television, complete with bi-annual increases, looks down right thrifty.
Right now you can watch as many movies or television shows as you like on up to six devices for less than $10 a month. That's the price level that people expect. Low price, flat rate, and they get to pick what they watch and when.
It's almost completely opposite of what the old guard wants. They don't get to dictate how or when, and they don't get anything per view (and especially not per viewer).
The longer answer is that they want you to pay them, both individually and collectively, every time you watch anything. Not only that, they would really love it if they could figure out how to charge you per person. (i.e. If 1 person is at the TV charge $x, if three people are sitting on the couch then charge $x + $x + $y).
Solution:
Change the laws to actually benefit the country and its citizens instead of greedy, increasingly obsolete businessmen.
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Get Pulled Over For Flashing Your Lights To Warn Others Of Cops?
Re: Re: Maine does it right....(Re: Re: slow down)
Usually while traveling on I95. Everywhere from Portsmouth to Bangor. Of course sometimes there _is_ an officer there (usually around Labor Day, July 4th, etc. whenever there's an increase in drunk driving) just to keep you honest.
They have a more enlightened method of handling 'Work Zones' (areas where people are working on the road) too. If there are people _actually_ working they post those "Work Zone ahead / fines doubled" signs. When the workers go home they take down or cover them up. I've seen equipment and pylons, but no workers. They've covered up the signs, so it's no longer a 'work zone'. One night, when there were people actually out working on the road, there was a police car with all his lights on parked about a mile before the area. This would cause people to slow down and helped keep the workers safe.
New York state on the other hand..... I've seen "Work Zone / fines doubled" signs posted apparently at random. A work zone starts, no workers, not even a barrel or a pylon. One to ten miles later "Word Zone Ends" sign. The only 'worker' was a police cruiser hiding somewhere in that stretch of road.
Maine - speeding/ work zones: policed to keep everyone safer.
New York (apparently Florida) - speeding / work zones: policed to maximize revenue.
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Get Pulled Over For Flashing Your Lights To Warn Others Of Cops?
Maine does it right....(Re: Re: slow down)
People see a police car and usually slow down. There isn't anyone there to actually hand out tickets, but this has the added benefit of not wasting police manpower.
From a revenue generating standpoint it's a complete failure. From an improving public safety standpoint, I think it's remarkably enlightened.
On the post: Debate On Software Patents Fails To Convince Silicon Valley That Patents Increase Innovation
Patents served a purpose.... once (Re: ))
If you came up with a new drug, a new bullet transport mechanism for a hand gun, a way to better separate the cotton seeds from the cotton fibers it was worth it to have your specify _exactly_ how you did it. In that way others could repeat/improve upon it. In exchange the government gave you the sole legal ability to control that technology for a couple of years. Sure beat having to constantly 'reinvent the wheel'.
This is why you couldn't patent; nature, math, ideas.
It had to be truly novel to someone _skilled_in_the_field_. No sense letting someone patent something that people would come up with anyway.
It had to be described it in sufficient detail for someone skilled in the art to build it, using _just_the_patent_application_. No sense giving patent protection to something that wasn't detailed or complete enough for say another gun manufacturer to build.
Combine that with the fact that technology progressed _very_slowly_, it wasn't that bad of a trade.
Unfortunately many things have combined to make them more trouble then what they're worth.
Technology progresses _much_ faster than it used to.
Patents are allowed for 'ideas' rather than specific implementations. (i.e. 'using a computer...' to do anything we already do without one.)
Patents are allowed for; nature (i.e. gene/existing plants), math (i.e using a particular sorting algorithm).
Patents are allowed for things that are obvious or a natural progression to someone skilled in the field (pretty much anything that suffers from multiple simultaneous invention).
And most damming, patents are awarded for things that purposely written so ambiguously that it's completely useless for the express purpose of allowing someone skilled in the field to replicate and build off of.
Of course that makes it perfect for suing other over.
As an example here's a portion of Oracle's '507 patent that it's using to sue Google over android.
Tell me that's clear enough so that someone skilled in the art can replicate the _exact_ invention that the patent was granted for. This isn't a claim to advance the state of progress, it's one to retard the state of progress, while unjustly enriching lawyers.
On the post: Surprise: Federal Court Says Warrant Needed For Mobile Phone Location Info
I can't turn it off completely..... (Re:)
So while I believe that you may be able to tell your phone not to let other programs use it, you can't _disable_ it completely.
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
Re: Re: O.K. I'll bite
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
But don't try that at a concert
On the post: Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content
O.K. I'll bite
Fashion - the biggest one that comes to mind.
Food (i.e. Recipes)
both evidence a phenomenal amount of creativity and neither are covered by copyright.
Copyright was originally envisioned as _a_ incentive, not the _only_ incentive to creating works. Originally most of the works that people think about when talking about copyrights (music, movies) weren't even covered.
Unfortunately, never content to pass up a profitable government monopoly, more and more things became _protected_ for longer and longer periods of time with larger penalties. Were things produced _without_ copyright protection? Of course, look at Mozart, or Plato, or da Vinci. Copyright just locked up more and more culture into fewer and fewer hands.
From the US Copyright office:
( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html )
"May 31, 1790 ...Books, maps, and charts protected."
"April 29, 1802 Prints added to protected works."
"February 3, 1831 ...Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. [note performance not protected]
"August 18, 1856 Dramatic compositions added to protected works. "
"March 3, 1865 Photographs and photographic negatives added to protected works."
"July 8, 1870 ...Works of art added to protected works. Act reserved to authors the right to create certain derivative works including translations and dramatizations."[first time derivative works protected]
"January 6, 1897 Music protected against unauthorized public performance." [Performance rights not protected until 100 years after copyright established]
"August 24, 1912 Motion pictures, previously registered as photographs, added to classes of protected works."
"January 1, 1953 Recording and performing rights extended to nondramatic literary works."
"February 15, 1972 Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date."
"March 10, 1974 United States became a member of the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, which came into force on April 18, 1973."
"December 12, 1980 Copyright law amended regarding computer programs."
"October 4, 1984 ...Grants the owner of copyright in a sound recording the right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes." [the start of prohibiting people from doing what they want to with what they have legally purchased]
"November 8, 1984 Federal statutory protection for mask works became available under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act...."
"December 1, 1990 ...Grants the owner of copyright in computer programs the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of the program for direct or indirect commercial purposes."[even software isn't safe from after sale restrictions]
"December 1, 1990 Protection extended to architectural works. ...Grants to visual artists certain moral rights of attribution and integrity."[who says we don't respect _moral_ rights?]
December 8, 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright to certain foreign works under protection in the source country but in the public domain in the United States [removing works from the public domain? presently being fought in court]; repealed sunset of the Software Rental Amendments Act[copyright restrictions always go in one direction]; and created legal measures to prohibit the unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings of live musical performances and music videos. [now even _your_own_recordings_ of live events are punished]
November 16, 1997
The No Electronic Theft Act defined “financial gain” in relation to copyright infringement and set penalties for willfully infringing a copyright either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means phonorecords of a certain value. [Now commercial penalties are levied against non commercial personal use copying]
On the post: Judge Decreases Amount Jammie Thomas Owes For File Sharing Again (Yes, Again); Says It's Appalling
Nonsensical laws return nonsensical results... and this surprises who?
Pre-No Electronic Theft Act (1997) she wouldn't have been charged with anything. Infringing copyright for personal use wasn't a crime. You could legally copy your albums, make mix tapes and trade those with your friends. As long as you didn't do it for financial gain it was legal. The only difference from where I sit is that pre-internet, it was cumbersome to make copies and/or swap them with others. Post internet it's almost impossible not to make copies and share.
When those in charge found out that they couldn't actually prosecute people for swapping/exchanging/sharing copyrighted materials for personal use they did what every red blooded American company does. They bought themselves some favorable legislation. Complete with over the top alleged damage amounts. Overnight, what pre-internet people took for granted became illegal. The excessive statutory damage amounts, that were only meant to apply to commercial infringers (remember pre-NET Act personal non-commercial wasn't illegal) now applied to teen-aged Texas cheerleaders, and mothers on welfare.
First stop, repeal the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997. Then dismantle the rest of these 'Intellectual Property' laws that criminalize large swaths of the citizenry and contribute to the trampling of our constitutional rights, not to mention the loss of jobs, innovation, it's costing the U.S. economy.
( http://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html )
On the post: TSA Agrees To Take The Naked Out Of Naked Scanners
really? or is it just more smoke and mirrors?
IF they were serious about privacy, then they would build these machines so that they were incapable of storing any images, and deleted the actual image as soon as the computer finished analysis. Instead they still store them and the requirements for new ones include high speed network links.
IF they were serious about our health, then they would decommission the problematic back scatter x-ray machines.
and finally IF they were serious about improving airport security they would focus on things that might actually make us safer (reinforced cockpits, banning obvious weapons, perhaps a few bomb sniffing dogs) instead of abusing the citizenry, shredding our constitutional rights, wasting billions of dollars we can't actually afford, and otherwise making air travel a miserable experience.
(reference to ACLU page on the same topic)
"A further question is whether the raw nude images remain in any way accessible to operators, which would mean one of the privacy threats posed by these machines – the “leakage” of images into the public domain – would remain. The machines are designed to store the images, even if they don’t show them. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, and effective oversight measures need to be in place to prevent abuse.
It is also worth noting that the new software is being installed only in millimeter wave machines, and not in scanners that use backscatter x-ray technology, which constitute about half of the scanners in service. The TSA says it is working on similar software for the backscatter machines. Note that health questions have also been raised concerning the backscatter x-ray machines (which look like a wall that you stand against, as opposed to the millimeter wave machines which are a glass booth you step inside).
( http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/tsa-scanners-start-moving-naked-bo dies-stick-figure )
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
Then who exactly commited criminal infringement? (Re: )
The best they've got is that lots of individuals may have committed civil copyright infringement. Puerto 80 may have 'aided and abetted' said alleged civil infringement.
At the end of the day it's still a case of the government abusing the law to appease private corporate interests that just happen to make sizable campaign contributions.
On the post: Microsoft Still Claiming That It Can Use The DMCA To Block Competing Xbox Accessories
Response to Apple RE: DMCA exception iPhone unlocking applicable
The reasoning, namely that the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions were there to protect a copyrighted work itself rather than as a tool to prevent end users from doing what they would otherwise be legally entitled to do with the hardware they purchased. If you had to copy or otherwise modify a copyrighted work to do so, that didn't run afoul of the DMCA.
Hopefully someone will point to that well thought out response in this case.
On the post: Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act
Executive branch trying to one-up Humpty Dumpty
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?' "
At least Humpty relented and tells Alice what 'he' means... our _transparent_ administration won't even do that....
On the post: DHS Boss: 'Very, Very, Very Few People Get A Pat Down'; Reality: ~1.8 Million People Per Month
Re: Re: Oh yeah, and there's that lil' thing...
"....and by voluntarily[emphasis mine] being searched, nobody's rights are being stripped."
Perhaps you would have a point if it was in any way voluntary. I have yet to hear about any airline traveler that said; "Please Mr. TSA man touch me in a morally inappropriate way." and then went on to complain about it.
If you enter the screening area the TSA reserves the right to 'screen' you. Don't even start with the, '... well you volunteered when you decided to fly." nonsense. Because if you go to fly and they say they want to assault you, even if you change your mind and decide not to fly they still reserve the right to assault you.
So the original poster did have a point, it's your response that I found rather pointless.
On the post: Match.com Plans To Ask Users If They're Sexual Predators
Yea, that's going to work
"Check this box if you are a terrorist"
Question that's on the form they ask passengers to fill out upon entering the country.
On the post: Lawsuits And Laws On The Way In Response To Sony Data Breach
Knee jerk laws are bad, but we do need to establish the rules of the road.
Getting hacked is the cost of doing business on the internet, that's a given.
The occasional kitchen fire is the cost of doing business as a restaurant. We have laws that minimize the number of kitchen fires and the damage that can occur when they do happen. We regulate what can be stored where, the maximum number of people allowed and establish evacuation routes. Requirements for fire extinguishers, type and placement. There are rules about who must be notified and how soon. Sure it's a cost of doing business, but we expect commercial kitchens to live up to a certain minimum standard. You follow the standard, bad things are less likely to happen and when they do they will probably be less severe. If it turns out worse then at least you weren't negligent.
We need laws that state the minimums for operating a commercial business on the internet. You don't store spare propane tanks over the stoves in a restaurant, you don't store users passwords as plain text. You need to maintain at least this (some defined) level of security. You need to notify these (some defined) people within this (some defined) period of time in the event of a breach.
We are seeing some of it starting, such as the VISA PCI DSS requirements, but they are mostly voluntary. We needs laws that establish a baseline, backed up by penalties with REAL TEETH. So that it isn't cheaper to ignore them and consider whatever token fine amount as 'the cost of doing business'.
Real privacy and consumer protection laws. Real commercial baselines.
Until that happens we can expect to see more internet versions of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
If that's your standard, then they should stop now.
"Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons..."
Then the TSA should stop immediately. Since it's already been shown that their procedures fall far short of 100% fool-proof way of detecting, well anything.
It's hard to make things 'fool-proof' as those fools are just so darn clever.
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
Re: Devil's advocate
Regardless of the state of the resource you are already paying for it. The point of contention is the ISP wanting to charge you _again_ if you choose to use what you've _already_ paid for in another way.
To use your bike analogy;
If you ride your bike around your block that's O.K., but it you use it to go to and from school/work/the library that's theft because you're depriving the owner (yourself) of access to your bike. Since you're bike's a finite resource that's stealing.
Ummm... no that doesn't make any sense. Especially when in the bike analogy, if you paid the bike manufacturer an additional "riding outside my neighborhood" fee, then it wouldn't be 'stealing' anymore.
Yep, that whole finite vs. infinite dimension really clears things up.
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
Went away with analog cable, coming back with digital
Combine the restriction against per television charges with 'cable ready' T.V. and VCR's and it's the same price for 1 or 100 televisions.
If you look carefully you'll see the digital cable television _isn't_ priced per television, but _per_set_top_box_. Of course you _need_ one set top box per television, so they are indirectly charging you per television.
Yet another reason, other than high per device rental fees, that the industry's fighting (rather successfully) against any plan to have 'cable ready' digital televisions.
On the post: Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix
Relative 'low' price isn't actually....
Sure $.99 a song ....sounds reasonable. Until you realize that people are carrying around players (that can cost less than $50) which are capable of holding 10,000 songs or more. To fill up that player at $.99 a song, you are looking at around $10,000. Suddenly that $.99 a song isn't all that reasonable.
It's the same thing with video/TV. $1/video $8/year for television content, sounds reasonable. If you watch a couple of 'videos' a day (and who decides what constitutes 'a video'? A movie? An episode of a television program? A single music -video-?) You're already talking $60/month.
$8/year for what? Everything by CBS & affiliates (not terribly likely)? Everything for a single television channel? Every episode for a single show?
Wow, in that world high priced digital cable television, complete with bi-annual increases, looks down right thrifty.
Right now you can watch as many movies or television shows as you like on up to six devices for less than $10 a month. That's the price level that people expect. Low price, flat rate, and they get to pick what they watch and when.
It's almost completely opposite of what the old guard wants. They don't get to dictate how or when, and they don't get anything per view (and especially not per viewer).
On the post: Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix
Short answer: Yes
The longer answer is that they want you to pay them, both individually and collectively, every time you watch anything. Not only that, they would really love it if they could figure out how to charge you per person. (i.e. If 1 person is at the TV charge $x, if three people are sitting on the couch then charge $x + $x + $y).
Solution:
Change the laws to actually benefit the country and its citizens instead of greedy, increasingly obsolete businessmen.
Next >>