At least—unlike many other bad actors who are the subject of TechDirt shame—the finally did stop digging the hole the found themselves in. Hopefully it's a permanent strategy shift, and they're not just taking a break to upgrade to a backhoe.
Here's the elephant in the room. No form of media is going to have anywhere close to the amount of influence over people that actual people having a face to face conversation does.
We read articles here on TechDirt about the FBI setting up fake "terrorism plots" to entrap people who otherwise would not have the wherewithal to carry out the plan. You don't see the FBI creating video games, comic books, or other "dangerous" media and getting results. It's never going to happen.
We are social creatures, and words and images on a page/screen are a weak substitute for true social interactions.
To me, this is yet another ho-hum article about companies overly-conservative knee-jerk reaction based on fear of the big bad boys in the copyright industry (note I didn't say content).
However the most notable part of the story is meta. The disclosure that the company who is the subject of this article's shaming gave money to TechDirt to support their reporting. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that the $210 I've given was well-spent.
“...Whil e all measures are being taken to contain the spread of the contagion, an effective, safe, and reliable Ebola inoculation unfortunately remains roughly 50 to 60 white people away, if not more... We are confident, however, that with each passing white person, we’re moving closer to an eventual antigenic that will prevent and possibly even eradicate the disease.”
There is a distinction between the address an the content
I hate to stand up for and ignorant government jackboot like him, but he does have a point, he's just not communicating it very eloquently.
Let's say the record shows I went to mail.google.com. I have several Google accounts, including my primary personal, primary work, admin work, and throwaway. If I understand how this system works, they only know which address I went to, but not which account I used and therefore they don't know specifically what content I viewed.
The same could be said for any dynamic content site (like a news site or video site), that adjusts content based on users' implicit or explicit preferences. They could know that I went to CNN but not necessarily that I saw the article about a doctor cleaned out and sewed up a festering pus hole on John Brennan's face (née his mouth).
That said, the fact that someone went to a site like emptyclosets.com speaks volumes.
This will work as well as outlawing free book shipping in Europe
-.pharmacy will be a great flag to use in my Google search to eliminate overpriced options.
I highly doubt the seniors who care very much about issues surrounding prescriptions are going to let legislators pass laws about where they can and cannot order their drugs. But even if big pharma does get their way...
If I were a foreign pharmacy shipping to the US, I would use a series of generic return addresses, swapping them out every month or 2. Welcome to whack-a-mole, the meat-space version.
appleinaz, Aereo set up their antenna systems specifically to *COMPLY* with the laws as written. Single antenna, single account, single customer. If they wanted to not comply, that's easy. Check out http://www.stream2u.me/
How a series of completely independent systems that happen to be running in parallel equates to a "broadcast" requires such lingual gymnastics that it could equally be interpreted to mean that storage locker providers are "broadcasting" boxes of old crap to its customers, and banks are "broadcasting" money.
Josh in CharlotteNC nailed it: all this does is keep piracy alive and well. And it will until the content providers get off their complacent asses and actually start giving customers in this highly connected world today what they want. I would love to see the next Game of Thrones try the Louis CK business model.
Take new emerging technology X and indiscriminately apply it to a host of existing items to create Techno-franken-hybrids that have not been thought through for base usefulness let alone feasibility.
Reminds me of this anecdote from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman":
—“Is this Professor Feynman, of Cornell University?” —“That’s right.” —“This is Mr. So-and-so from the Such-and-such Aircraft Company.”
It was one of the big airplane companies in California, but unfortunately I can’t remember which one. The guy continues: “We’re planning to start a laboratory on nuclear-propelled rocket airplanes. It will have an annual budget of so-and-so-many million dollars . . .” Big numbers. I said,
—“Just a moment, sir; I don’t know why you’re telling me all this.” —“Just let me speak to you,” he says; “just let me explain everything. Please let me do it my way.”
So he goes on a little more, and says how many people are going to be in the laboratory, so-and-so-many people at this level, and so-and-so-many Ph.D’s at that level . . .
—“Excuse me, sir,” I say, “but I think you have the wrong fella.” —“Am I talking to Richard Feynman, Richard _P_. Feynman?” —“Yes, but you’re.. —“Would you _please_ let me present what I have to say, sir, and _then_ we’ll discuss it.” —“All right!”
I sit down and sort of close my eyes to listen to all this stuff, all these details about this big project, and I still haven’t the slightest idea _why_ he’s giving me all this information. Finally, when he’s all finished, he says,
—“I’m telling you about our plans because we want to know if you would like to be the director of the laboratory.” —“Have you _really_ got the right fella? I’m a professor of theoretical physics. I’m not a rocket engineer, or an airplane engineer, or anything like that.” —“We’re sure we have the right fellow.’ —“Where did you get my name then? Why did you decide to call _me_?” —“Sir, your name is on the patent for nuclear-powered, rocket-propelled airplanes.” —“Oh,”
And I realized _why_ my name was on the patent, and I’ll have to tell you the story. I told the man, “I’m sorry, but I would like to continue as a professor at Cornell University.”
What had happened was, during the war, at Los Alamos, there was a very nice fella in charge of the patent office for the government, named Captain Smith. Smith sent around a notice to everybody that said something like “We in the patent office would like to patent every idea you have for the United States government, for which you are working now. Any idea you have on nuclear energy or its application that you may think everybody knows about, everybody _doesn’t_ know about: Just come to my office and tell me the idea.”
I see Smith at lunch, and as we’re walking back to the technical area, I say to him, “That note you sent around: That’s kind of crazy to have us come in and tell you _every_ idea.” We discussed it back and forth–by this time we’re in his office-and I say, “There are so many ideas about nuclear energy that are so perfectly obvious, that I’d be here all _day_ telling you stuff.”
“LIKE WHAT?”
“Nothin’ to it!” I say. “Example: nuclear reactor . . . under water. . water goes in . . . steam goes out the other side . . . _Pshshshsht_–it’s a submarine. Or: nuclear reactor . . . air comes rushing in the front. . . heated up by nuclear reaction . . . out the back it goes . . . _Boom!_ Through the air–it’s an airplane. Or: nuclear reactor . . you have hydrogen go through the thing . . . _Zoom!_–it’s a rocket. Or: nuclear reactor . . . only instead of using ordinary uranium, you use enriched uranium with beryllium oxide at high temperature to make it more efficient . . . It’s an electrical power plant. There’s a _million_ ideas!” I said, as I went out the door.
Nothing happened.
About three months later, Smith calls me in the office and says, “Feynman, the submarine has already been taken. But the other three are yours.” So when the guys at the airplane company in California are planning their laboratory, and try to find out who’s an expert in rocket-propelled whatnots, there’s nothing to it: They look at who’s got the patent on it!”
As I read this article, I realize now what is going on. The government agencies and politicians are in this sick symbiotic relationship with the terrorists. They use the abstract fear of "terrorists will terrorize you all! Booga booga!" and use that as justification for all of the freedoms they take away from us.
But to me, these "meta-terrorists" are scarier than terrorists. At a statistical level, I am much more likely to have my 4th amendment being violated, get harassed at the airport, or get labeled a trouble-maker and put on some "watch list" for my rabble-rousing ideas than I am to be directly (or even indirectly) harmed by a terrorist.
And so the terrorists have won, because they have recruited the most powerful leaders in the world to terrorize their own citizens on their behalf. It's not exactly the same kind of terrorism, mind you. But it is much more pervasive and insidious. And the amount of time, money, resources, and attention we've wasted on it makes the impacts of actual terrorist events like 9/11 look like a rounding error.
I wish our leaders would learn about processing events but then letting them go. Tit for tat in iterated prisoners' dilemma tells us that we're better off not holding a grudge. If someone wrongs you, let them know and yes even punish them, but then forgive and move on. If you continue to cling to the hurt and live your life as if you expect it again, first it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and second you are making a choice to hang onto the negativity.
So by that logic, maybe the broadcasters should cut the strength of their "broadcast" to just enough where they can legally claim they are still benefitting the public. Or they could broadcast at the same strength, but out in the middle of nowhere where few people are there to receive it. That way they force as many people as possible to pay for their service.
As I read this article, I realize now what is going on. The government agencies and politicians are in this sick symbiotic relationship with the terrorists. They use the abstract fear of "terrorists will terrorize you all! Booga booga!" and use that as justification for all of the freedoms they take away from us.
But to me, these people are scarier than terrorists. At a statistical level, I am much more likely to have my 4th amendment being violated, get harassed at the airport, or get labeled a trouble-maker and put on some "watch list" for my rabble-rousing ideas than I am to be directly (or even indirectly) harmed by a terrorist.
And so the terrorists have won, because they have recruited the most powerful leaders in the world to terrorize their own citizens on their behalf. It's not exactly the same kind of terrorism, mind you. But it is much more pervasive and insidious. And the amount of time, money, resources, and attention we've wasted on it makes the impacts of actual terrorist events like 9/11 look like a rounding error.
In other news, the TSA has decided to install security checkpoints at various locations in New Guinea and throughout Micronesia because—in the words of TSA spokesperson Lisa Farbstein—"It sure looks like an airport to me".
The FAA said it's team of aircraft experts were still researching whether this new aircraft should be classified as an ultralight (ULAC) or simply a pile of branches and bark (WOOD).
Are drones really the best tech to solve this problem?
I think droneswhile certainly valuable in some instancesare too often put forth as a panacea for so many problems. There are other methods to solve this problem that are simpler, cheaper, and more effective.
The easiest thing to do is get a massive telescopic lens, a parabolic mic, and a good vantage just outside the property.
Or how about accompanying any government employee that goes out to the facility to inspect, and video recording that? It is not against the law to record a government official acting in their official capacity.
And the third method is the simplest: ignore the law. Do the recording anyway but launder the recorder through various middle men. Post the video to servers outside the state/country. If they are abusing animals, then there is a moral duty that stands above the self-serving special interests fueled laws that happen to be temporarily on the books today.
So the whole pattern of troll sues, settles, but demands gag order as a part of the settlement has been bothering me. After all sunlight is the best disinfectant. So I came up with a scheme that as a non-lawyer seems logical to me. Perhaps others (actual lawyers or those with experience in this) can weigh in.
Before I sign any sort of agreement with a troll, I am bound by nothing. That is up to the very second the tip of my pen touches the signature line of an agreement. I don't see anything that would stop me from posting a copy of the agreement that pretty explicitly shows how it has NOT been signed by me (at least not yet), with language in the post stating very clearly that this is the exact wording of the agreement that I intend to sign, however once I sign I will not be allowed to confirm that.
Me signing the agreement cannot change the past, or force me to take down any documents or drafts that were circulated and/or published prior to me actually signing, right?
This seems no different than "The NSA has not compromised our systems. Please watch for removal of this notice."proactively setting things up so that information may be communicated in a post-gag order world.
Oh say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the ignorant-politicians-who-haven't-bothered-to-think-through-the-implications-of-their-facile-solution s, and the home of the brave.
On the post: San Jose Police Dept. Spends Two Years Denying Any Interest In Drones Before Apologizing And Handing Over Documents
Partial credit where partial credit is due
On the post: Learning From History: How One Lying Liar Almost Screwed The Comic Book Industry
People > media by an order of magnitude
We read articles here on TechDirt about the FBI setting up fake "terrorism plots" to entrap people who otherwise would not have the wherewithal to carry out the plan. You don't see the FBI creating video games, comic books, or other "dangerous" media and getting results. It's never going to happen.
We are social creatures, and words and images on a page/screen are a weak substitute for true social interactions.
On the post: Twitch Begins Silencing Videos With Audible Magic: Making Everyone Worse Off, Because Copyright Law Sucks
TechDirt is about as unbiased as you can get
However the most notable part of the story is meta. The disclosure that the company who is the subject of this article's shaming gave money to TechDirt to support their reporting. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that the $210 I've given was well-spent.
On the post: Ebola Cure Not Fully Developed Because Big Pharma Not Interested In Saving Lives Of Poor People In Africa
The Onion nailed this a week ago`
“...Whil e all measures are being taken to contain the spread of the contagion, an effective, safe, and reliable Ebola inoculation unfortunately remains roughly 50 to 60 white people away, if not more... We are confident, however, that with each passing white person, we’re moving closer to an eventual antigenic that will prevent and possibly even eradicate the disease.”
On the post: Australia's Attorney General Says Metadata Collection Won't Track Your Web Surfing, Just The Web Addresses You Visit (Huh?)
There is a distinction between the address an the content
Let's say the record shows I went to mail.google.com. I have several Google accounts, including my primary personal, primary work, admin work, and throwaway. If I understand how this system works, they only know which address I went to, but not which account I used and therefore they don't know specifically what content I viewed.
The same could be said for any dynamic content site (like a news site or video site), that adjusts content based on users' implicit or explicit preferences. They could know that I went to CNN but not necessarily that I saw the article about a doctor cleaned out and sewed up a festering pus hole on John Brennan's face (née his mouth).
That said, the fact that someone went to a site like emptyclosets.com speaks volumes.
On the post: Big Pharma Given Control Of New .pharmacy Domain; Only Available To 'Legitimate' Online Pharmacies
This will work as well as outlawing free book shipping in Europe
I highly doubt the seniors who care very much about issues surrounding prescriptions are going to let legislators pass laws about where they can and cannot order their drugs. But even if big pharma does get their way...
If I were a foreign pharmacy shipping to the US, I would use a series of generic return addresses, swapping them out every month or 2. Welcome to whack-a-mole, the meat-space version.
On the post: 24 Hours Left To Support Our Crowdfunding Campaign On Net Neutrality: Now With Stretch Goals
Any matching funds left to unlock?
Also would be interested in knowing how much to get a text ad on some or all of the upcoming net-neut (net-newt?) articles.
On the post: As Deadline Approaches, Imgur Pledges Matching Funds To Support Techdirt's Net Neutrality Campaign
4✕ match now?
On the post: Court Fines French Blogger $3,400 For Her Negative Review Of Local Italian Restaurant, Il Giardino
Where does it end?
http://www.yelp.com/biz/il-giardino-l%C3%A8ge-cap-ferret-2
I wonder if management will go after those reviewers too? And how can they if those people don't even live in France?
Tell you what, if I'm ever in Cap Ferret, I'm going to go there just so I can have personal experience to leave a bad review.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
The sound this ruling makes hurts my ears
How a series of completely independent systems that happen to be running in parallel equates to a "broadcast" requires such lingual gymnastics that it could equally be interpreted to mean that storage locker providers are "broadcasting" boxes of old crap to its customers, and banks are "broadcasting" money.
Josh in CharlotteNC nailed it: all this does is keep piracy alive and well. And it will until the content providers get off their complacent asses and actually start giving customers in this highly connected world today what they want. I would love to see the next Game of Thrones try the Louis CK business model.
On the post: How Patents Are Stopping Your Microwave From Being Awesome
Tried and true irrelevant patent technique
Reminds me of this anecdote from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman":
—“Is this Professor Feynman, of Cornell University?”
—“That’s right.”
—“This is Mr. So-and-so from the Such-and-such Aircraft Company.”
It was one of the big airplane companies in California, but unfortunately I can’t remember which one. The guy continues: “We’re planning to start a laboratory on nuclear-propelled rocket airplanes. It will have an annual budget of so-and-so-many million dollars . . .” Big numbers. I said,
—“Just a moment, sir; I don’t know why you’re telling me all this.”
—“Just let me speak to you,” he says; “just let me explain everything. Please let me do it my way.”
So he goes on a little more, and says how many people are going to be in the laboratory, so-and-so-many people at this level, and so-and-so-many Ph.D’s at that level . . .
—“Excuse me, sir,” I say, “but I think you have the wrong fella.”
—“Am I talking to Richard Feynman, Richard _P_. Feynman?”
—“Yes, but you’re..
—“Would you _please_ let me present what I have to say, sir, and _then_ we’ll discuss it.”
—“All right!”
I sit down and sort of close my eyes to listen to all this stuff, all these details about this big project, and I still haven’t the slightest idea _why_ he’s giving me all this information. Finally, when he’s all finished, he says,
—“I’m telling you about our plans because we want to know if you would like to be the director of the laboratory.”
—“Have you _really_ got the right fella? I’m a professor of theoretical physics. I’m not a rocket engineer, or an airplane engineer, or anything like that.”
—“We’re sure we have the right fellow.’
—“Where did you get my name then? Why did you decide to call _me_?”
—“Sir, your name is on the patent for nuclear-powered, rocket-propelled airplanes.”
—“Oh,”
And I realized _why_ my name was on the patent, and I’ll have to tell you the story. I told the man, “I’m sorry, but I would like to continue as a professor at Cornell University.”
What had happened was, during the war, at Los Alamos, there was a very nice fella in charge of the patent office for the government, named Captain Smith. Smith sent around a notice to everybody that said something like “We in the patent office would like to patent every idea you have for the United States government, for which you are working now. Any idea you have on nuclear energy or its application that you may think everybody knows about, everybody _doesn’t_ know about: Just come to my office and tell me the idea.”
I see Smith at lunch, and as we’re walking back to the technical area, I say to him, “That note you sent around: That’s kind of crazy to have us come in and tell you _every_ idea.” We discussed it back and forth–by this time we’re in his office-and I say, “There are so many ideas about nuclear energy that are so perfectly obvious, that I’d be here all _day_ telling you stuff.”
“LIKE WHAT?”
“Nothin’ to it!” I say. “Example: nuclear reactor . . . under water. . water goes in . . . steam goes out the other side . . . _Pshshshsht_–it’s a submarine. Or: nuclear reactor . . . air comes rushing in the front. . . heated up by nuclear reaction . . . out the back it goes . . . _Boom!_ Through the air–it’s an airplane. Or: nuclear reactor . . you have hydrogen go through the thing . . . _Zoom!_–it’s a rocket. Or: nuclear reactor . . . only instead of using ordinary uranium, you use enriched uranium with beryllium oxide at high temperature to make it more efficient . . . It’s an electrical power plant. There’s a _million_ ideas!” I said, as I went out the door.
Nothing happened.
About three months later, Smith calls me in the office and says, “Feynman, the submarine has already been taken. But the other three are yours.” So when the guys at the airplane company in California are planning their laboratory, and try to find out who’s an expert in rocket-propelled whatnots, there’s nothing to it: They look at who’s got the patent on it!”
On the post: Snowden, Meet Godwin: British Ambassador Says Leaks Would Have Helped Hitler
Our own government are meta-terrorists
But to me, these "meta-terrorists" are scarier than terrorists. At a statistical level, I am much more likely to have my 4th amendment being violated, get harassed at the airport, or get labeled a trouble-maker and put on some "watch list" for my rabble-rousing ideas than I am to be directly (or even indirectly) harmed by a terrorist.
And so the terrorists have won, because they have recruited the most powerful leaders in the world to terrorize their own citizens on their behalf. It's not exactly the same kind of terrorism, mind you. But it is much more pervasive and insidious. And the amount of time, money, resources, and attention we've wasted on it makes the impacts of actual terrorist events like 9/11 look like a rounding error.
I wish our leaders would learn about processing events but then letting them go. Tit for tat in iterated prisoners' dilemma tells us that we're better off not holding a grudge. If someone wrongs you, let them know and yes even punish them, but then forgive and move on. If you continue to cling to the hurt and live your life as if you expect it again, first it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and second you are making a choice to hang onto the negativity.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: If you're too far away, you must pay
On the post: Snowden, Meet Godwin: British Ambassador Says Leaks Would Have Helped Hitler
Our politicians are meta-terrorists
But to me, these people are scarier than terrorists. At a statistical level, I am much more likely to have my 4th amendment being violated, get harassed at the airport, or get labeled a trouble-maker and put on some "watch list" for my rabble-rousing ideas than I am to be directly (or even indirectly) harmed by a terrorist.
And so the terrorists have won, because they have recruited the most powerful leaders in the world to terrorize their own citizens on their behalf. It's not exactly the same kind of terrorism, mind you. But it is much more pervasive and insidious. And the amount of time, money, resources, and attention we've wasted on it makes the impacts of actual terrorist events like 9/11 look like a rounding error.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
But it *LOOKS* like an airport...
The FAA said it's team of aircraft experts were still researching whether this new aircraft should be classified as an ultralight (ULAC) or simply a pile of branches and bark (WOOD).
On the post: Using Drones To Soar Above 'Ag-Gag' Laws
Are drones really the best tech to solve this problem?
The easiest thing to do is get a massive telescopic lens, a parabolic mic, and a good vantage just outside the property.
Or how about accompanying any government employee that goes out to the facility to inspect, and video recording that? It is not against the law to record a government official acting in their official capacity.
And the third method is the simplest: ignore the law. Do the recording anyway but launder the recorder through various middle men. Post the video to servers outside the state/country. If they are abusing animals, then there is a moral duty that stands above the self-serving special interests fueled laws that happen to be temporarily on the books today.
On the post: Patent Troll That Accused FindTheBest Of 'Hate Crime' For Fighting Back Now Has To Pay FTB's Legal Fees
Getting around gag orders
Before I sign any sort of agreement with a troll, I am bound by nothing. That is up to the very second the tip of my pen touches the signature line of an agreement. I don't see anything that would stop me from posting a copy of the agreement that pretty explicitly shows how it has NOT been signed by me (at least not yet), with language in the post stating very clearly that this is the exact wording of the agreement that I intend to sign, however once I sign I will not be allowed to confirm that.
Me signing the agreement cannot change the past, or force me to take down any documents or drafts that were circulated and/or published prior to me actually signing, right?
This seems no different than "The NSA has not compromised our systems. Please watch for removal of this notice."proactively setting things up so that information may be communicated in a post-gag order world.
On the post: Someone Please Tell Congress That 'Free' Is Not Illegal & Not To Lie About Bogus Search Results
O'er the land of the ignorant-politicians-who-haven't-bothered-to-think-through-the-implications-of-their-facile-solution s, and the home of the brave.
On the post: RIAA's Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than Google How To Build A Search Engine
Not an Einstein quote
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Narcotics_Anonymous
On the post: MPAA & RIAA Return To Blaming Google For Their Own Inability To Innovate
Insanity quote
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed
Next >>