When empirical proof is impossible to acquire, the next thing you use is logic, not a retreat to "don't even think about trying to explain this". The most logical reason for the increase in encryption is that previously unencrypted traffic is now being encrypted. As there hasn't been a decrease in unencrypted child porn, there's no reason for recipe sharers to be running to encryption services, and there has been a decrease in unencrypted piracy, the most logical conclusion is that piracy is now more widely encrypted. This is what you're supposed to do when direct evidence is not available.
If they wanted to use the classic sense they should've found a different word. "Piracy" means "selling illegal goods" in the same way that "idiot" is a valid medical diagnosis.
"If you were the EFF, wouldn't you want to get rid of an employee who constantly made speeches to co-workers advocating stronger copyright protection laws?"
That's an activity directly opposed to the primary purpose of the organization. Firing them would be about equivalent to the government getting rid of a police officer with mob connections.
"What about someone who e-mails around racist jokes to office colleagues?"
"Both are protected speech. How about a Planned Parenthood worker who distributes antiabortion flyers complete with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at lunchtime?"
Again, that directly opposes the goals of the organization. Does the IRS tolerate people that spend their spare time helping people evade taxes? If so, it's the governmental restrictions that are ridiculous, not the actions of the private organization.
"Should the Boy Scouts tolerate a scoutmaster that's a member of NAMBLA?"
What the guy faps to is his own business. If he can't be trusted to keep it to that, then that presents a clear threat to the kids and it would be irresponsible to let him keep his job. This isn't inconsistent with governmental policy either. It can't fire Muslims just for praying to a different thing, but it isn't expected to employ known members of Al Qaeda.
If you want to make a point, find examples where the government wouldn't be able to act in an equivalent situation.
"Are privately funded scientific efforts going to be a trend (like 3D movies)?"
Crowdsourced scientific efforts are also a possibility, but for big things like getting to the bottom of the ocean, getting an obscenely rich person involved seems like it would be easier. And, unlike 3D movies, major scientific projects are worth seeing.
This is true. We can no longer claim to have empirically proven that a drop in piracy leads to an increase in sales. Still, proving that these measures don't do anything is almost as good. It's one of those things, and either way Hadopi isn't helping anyone.
"The point is, it could be recipes, it could be vacation photos, who knows?"
And why would any of those things be spiking now? Piracy has a reason to be moving more heavily to encryption at the moment, and that means that the piracy explanation is more likely than any other random use of data you can think of.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. So the Bill of Rights technically only applies to the US Government. Why does that make it unreasonable for people to expect other powerful entities to similarly restrain themselves?
A far more likely conclusion is that P2P piracy traffic is now encrypted, rather than there being an unrelated surge in interest in child porn. It could be child porn, but it's less likely.
People do, indeed, want to be entertained, and they are easily entertained. That's why this won't fly. Once people start losing the ability to watch a cat jump into a box, there will be hell to pay.
And before that, theaters and concert halls were giving money to artists based on how many people showed up to their show. Clearly YouTube wasn't at all innovative either.
Well, our fundamental freedoms are already subject to a majority vote. It's just a majority of five, and those voting tend to be more educated on average than most voters. But yes, a simple majority vote seems like a bad idea for exactly that reason. There'd need to be other qualifications such as a minimum voter turnout to be valid and a majority much larger than half, maybe two thirds to three quarters majority to overturn.
"Any entity that has power over government administration becomes, by definition, part of the government."
If the ability to hold a popular vote to overturn a governmental action makes the populace a part of the government, then that's fine. I just think writing your congressman is pathetic, inefficient and generally ineffectual.
"Not to mention, you'd have to undertake a wholesale revision of the Constitution to even implement such a thing."
I think this could be achieved with an amendment, but if that's what it takes, then I want a wholesale revision of the Constitution. Pure representative democracy has run its course.
I wouldn't object to a non-governmental method of overturning any decisions made by any part of the federal government. Why should we have to beg our representatives to properly represent us?
Are we really still using 9/11 to justify things? It was over a decade ago. If there was going to be a repeat, it would've happened already. An event that some voters aren't old enough to properly remember is not a valid basis for national policy.
"Brittle", in materials terms, just means it breaks instead of bending. Lack of deformation does not mean that it falls apart when dropped. That tile floor will break before the ring does.
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft Releases Utterly Bizarre And Confusing Anti-Piracy Video
Re:
On the post: Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an activity directly opposed to the primary purpose of the organization. Firing them would be about equivalent to the government getting rid of a police officer with mob connections.
"What about someone who e-mails around racist jokes to office colleagues?"
Nope.
"Both are protected speech. How about a Planned Parenthood worker who distributes antiabortion flyers complete with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at lunchtime?"
Again, that directly opposes the goals of the organization. Does the IRS tolerate people that spend their spare time helping people evade taxes? If so, it's the governmental restrictions that are ridiculous, not the actions of the private organization.
"Should the Boy Scouts tolerate a scoutmaster that's a member of NAMBLA?"
What the guy faps to is his own business. If he can't be trusted to keep it to that, then that presents a clear threat to the kids and it would be irresponsible to let him keep his job. This isn't inconsistent with governmental policy either. It can't fire Muslims just for praying to a different thing, but it isn't expected to employ known members of Al Qaeda.
If you want to make a point, find examples where the government wouldn't be able to act in an equivalent situation.
On the post: DailyDirt: Getting To The Bottom Of It All
Crowdsourced scientific efforts are also a possibility, but for big things like getting to the bottom of the ocean, getting an obscenely rich person involved seems like it would be easier. And, unlike 3D movies, major scientific projects are worth seeing.
On the post: Microsoft Releases Utterly Bizarre And Confusing Anti-Piracy Video
Re:
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re:
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And why would any of those things be spiking now? Piracy has a reason to be moving more heavily to encryption at the moment, and that means that the piracy explanation is more likely than any other random use of data you can think of.
On the post: Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table
Re: Not too small.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the ability to hold a popular vote to overturn a governmental action makes the populace a part of the government, then that's fine. I just think writing your congressman is pathetic, inefficient and generally ineffectual.
"Not to mention, you'd have to undertake a wholesale revision of the Constitution to even implement such a thing."
I think this could be achieved with an amendment, but if that's what it takes, then I want a wholesale revision of the Constitution. Pure representative democracy has run its course.
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Searches
It seems like fixing that might be a better approach than treating everyone with a parking violation like they're hardened criminals.
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Diamonds, With Lucy, In The Sky
Re:
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opacity
Next >>