I think you should add encrypted friend-to-friend communication tools to that list. I'm going to compile RetroShare over the weekend to check it out.
In the long term, once personal upload rates become heftier, we would only need tools like that (assuming it does what I think it does) to replace sites like YouTube. In the short term, assuming that at least some file locker sites manage to stay alive, sharing links via such a network might be OK.
Personally, I'm optimistic that things won't deteriorate to that level. Now that the genie of wide access to information/communication has been let out of the bottle, I doubt that even the **AAs can put it back (if we remain vigilant). OTOH, it pays to always have a "Plan B".
Even more troubling is that some of the newest filesystems come with deduplication on a smaller-than-whole-file level, for example, a block level. One wonders what a locker service is supposed to do when notified that a file infringes, and an analysis (assuming the tools exist to do this analysis) shows that other files contain a range from 25% to 90% usage of blocks from the infringing file?
Even more troubling is that some of the newest filesystems come with deduplication on a smaller-than-whole-file level, for example, a block level. One wonders what a locker service is supposed to do when notified that a file infringes, and an analysis (assuming the tools exist to do this analysis) shows that other files contain a range from 25% to 90% usage of blocks from the infringing file?
Re: Re: Re: How about a short note or page for the subject to annotate?
No, I think you're ignoring the concerns of the Wikipedia community. Even with the resources one has (the automatic diff generation from the history list), it can be quite hard (or at least, a lot of work) to understand exactly what was changed by who. The community prefers to sacrifice a possible net improvement in the articles' quality in order to minimize questions which might arise about POV/conflict of interest if PR people would be directly allowed to edit the articles.
What I find interesting about this whole discussion, is that people aren't just assuming that the majority of PR people are less scrupulous than Phil Gomes, and they simply edit their clients' articles from the wireless connection at the neighborhood coffee shop. Or is that what you meant by saying that this is the status quo (except that in that case there is nothing like the notice you talk about for the sake of transparency).
Re: How about a short note or page for the subject to annotate?
To try to translate your proposal to the current technical framework of Wikipedia, the PR person could flag the article with a template, and add to the talk page a link to a sub-page of a user page where the correction text would actually reside, pending action by editors without a conflict of interest.
You're right, in the most part, it doesn't matter any more.
Even now, and more so as technology progresses, anyone who so chooses can totally ignore copyright law in the privacy of their own home.
People who might want to do so in public, however, like symphony orchestras, are still out of luck. They are a small group compared to the general public, however.
In Section 104, payment providers (and others) are granted immunity from prosecution if (and only if) they act on requests from private parties claiming infringement.
Which means that the actions taken will be extra-judicial, unless these payment providers (and others) have the balls to question such requests. Hint: in practice, they won't --- unless, possibly, the site in question is a really major one (Google Wallet, for example).
Don't forget that if they themselves ignore such requests, they could be considered to be "aiding infringement" or "enabling circumvention".
It frankly doesn't matter at all that those words, or any others, are in the bill, as long as the private interests which this bill empowers get to decide whether the words of the bill apply to a website, without judicial oversight controlling the immediate consequences.
I'd like to see it catch an original Star Wars fan fic video.
Yes, Virginia, copyright infringements which are not simple copying do exist. And simple copying exists which isn't infringement, because it is fair use. And no automated software could possibly catch these cases, because they can only be determined with 100% certainty in a court of law.
You do realize that this still is "breaking the Internet", because any such decentralized server will almost certainly be hackable by anyone controlling a large-enough botnet?
Judges, even if they are not technically skilled enough to see the folly of such a decision, don't like people abusing their decisions, either. I have a feeling that eventually, if BREIN and their ilk gain enough power, they're going to overstep it, and the slapdown isn't going to look nice.
Even now, (at least some of) the judges in the federal courts in the US are currently trying to prevent totally insane damage amounts for infringement via P2P (limiting them per-work to thousands of dollars rather than the maximum of $150K).
Your HP example is a strawman. In it you avoid addressing the real concept, which is that ideas are not protected by copyright. Your example is a strawman because the implementation you give is a ripoff of another protected implementation.
I'm just still trying my best to figure out any kind of argument I could use to support a copyright lasting 50 years after the death of an artist. Holding to the idea that copyright is supposed to encourage new works, there is no argument I can come up with to support the current copyright system.
It is an incentive to society to murder any artist who actually enforces their copyrights?
To be serious, the (erroneous) economic argument is that it produces a greater incentive for living artists to create works, since the value of these works is increased by having a longer copyright term for them (even if only their heirs will see the extra value). This reasoning is wrong, since the economic reality is that only a very, very small minority of works have value in the long term.
On the post: Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
Yeah, he has issues with tech
On the post: Another Interesting White House Petition: Reduce The Term Of Copyright
On the post: Major Media Owning SOPA/PIPA Supporters Whine That They Had No Way To Have Their Message Heard
Freudian slip in title?
Hmm, was that a double entendre implying that Major Media own the (Congressional) supporters of SOPA/PIPA?
Sad that that slip isn't even notable, eh?
On the post: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA's Not Going Away
Add friend-to-friend sharing tools to that list
In the long term, once personal upload rates become heftier, we would only need tools like that (assuming it does what I think it does) to replace sites like YouTube. In the short term, assuming that at least some file locker sites manage to stay alive, sharing links via such a network might be OK.
Personally, I'm optimistic that things won't deteriorate to that level. Now that the genie of wide access to information/communication has been let out of the bottle, I doubt that even the **AAs can put it back (if we remain vigilant). OTOH, it pays to always have a "Plan B".
On the post: Supreme Court Chooses SOPA/PIPA Protest Day To Give A Giant Middle Finger To The Public Domain
Re: Re: Kahle? It was denied cert
(A non-maximalist is allowed to dream, no?)
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
LOL
On the post: Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors?
Re: Re: Re: How about a short note or page for the subject to annotate?
What I find interesting about this whole discussion, is that people aren't just assuming that the majority of PR people are less scrupulous than Phil Gomes, and they simply edit their clients' articles from the wireless connection at the neighborhood coffee shop. Or is that what you meant by saying that this is the status quo (except that in that case there is nothing like the notice you talk about for the sake of transparency).
On the post: Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors?
Re: How about a short note or page for the subject to annotate?
On the post: Supreme Court Chooses SOPA/PIPA Protest Day To Give A Giant Middle Finger To The Public Domain
Re: Re: Article 1 Section 10
You're right, in the most part, it doesn't matter any more.
Even now, and more so as technology progresses, anyone who so chooses can totally ignore copyright law in the privacy of their own home.
People who might want to do so in public, however, like symphony orchestras, are still out of luck. They are a small group compared to the general public, however.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Section 104
Which means that the actions taken will be extra-judicial, unless these payment providers (and others) have the balls to question such requests. Hint: in practice, they won't --- unless, possibly, the site in question is a really major one (Google Wallet, for example).
Don't forget that if they themselves ignore such requests, they could be considered to be "aiding infringement" or "enabling circumvention".
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
No, it doesn't work "great"
Yes, Virginia, copyright infringements which are not simple copying do exist. And simple copying exists which isn't infringement, because it is fair use. And no automated software could possibly catch these cases, because they can only be determined with 100% certainty in a court of law.
On the post: Lamar Smith Follows Leahy's Steps With Plans To Delay DNS Implementation In SOPA
Re: Re: Easy for them, work for us
On the post: Lamar Smith Follows Leahy's Steps With Plans To Delay DNS Implementation In SOPA
Easy for them, work for us
On the post: Dutch ISPs Told To Block The Pirate Bay
Here's my plan (a la Uncle Shelby)
Judges, even if they are not technically skilled enough to see the folly of such a decision, don't like people abusing their decisions, either. I have a feeling that eventually, if BREIN and their ilk gain enough power, they're going to overstep it, and the slapdown isn't going to look nice.
Even now, (at least some of) the judges in the federal courts in the US are currently trying to prevent totally insane damage amounts for infringement via P2P (limiting them per-work to thousands of dollars rather than the maximum of $150K).
On the post: Techdirt 2011: The Numbers.
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
Re: Re:
On the post: The Great Digitization Or The Great Betrayal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I have this right
To be serious, the (erroneous) economic argument is that it produces a greater incentive for living artists to create works, since the value of these works is increased by having a longer copyright term for them (even if only their heirs will see the extra value). This reasoning is wrong, since the economic reality is that only a very, very small minority of works have value in the long term.
Next >>