how about if I left a live phone drop outside my house?
If threats to the President were made from my number, would I not be considered 'negligent' for putting such a system in place?
I fully agree there's no requirement to secure your wifi, but as the account holder I am in the end responsible for its use am I not? Perhaps not criminally liable, but certainly civilly (sp?) I would expect.
And the obligatory car analogy -
if my car is seen robbing a bank, you can bet there going to be talking to me about 'who' was using my car. Is leaving my car on the street with the keys in it 'negligent'?
Just arguing the devils advocate positions, interested in any ideas to counter them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do App developers need UDID's for?
Uh, its still extremely plausible that everybody is telling the truth here EXCEPT the FBI.
In contacting the authorities, the company could have easily given FBI the ability to grab some data to investigate, then anonymous hacks the FBI's laptop.
Only liar in this situation is the FBI who claimed no knowledge of the situation at all.
Or they just don't know what the hell they're doing...
Anonymous has pulled off some pretty significant hacks before...what reason would they have to lie? Whereas the FBI has been caught routinely lying over the decades. They have a reputation to protect...
Copyright is a valid and useful concept. It just doesn't work as well in the digital world, but it still applies and is *very* valid in the physical world.
It's a lot harder to monetize something if you have to pay to create the copies. In the digital world, that's free and so information is effectively infinite. Hence how you can give away your content and drive purchases to thing that aren't infinite.
In the physical world, selling actual books for instance, there's a cost to making each copy of the book and so it isn't as easy to 'give away' the content in the same manner.
It could be argued that with the advent of the internet and digital media, perhaps copyright is now an outdated concept - since vastly more people are creating content than ever before and that's the express purpose of copyright.
But as a concept it's still a valid idea; just the corruption of the implementation that's being worked out.
I don't believe working in your area of expertise means you are getting job experience.
It means you already have experience and skill and knowledge over something and thus are a reasonably good candidate to work in government positions related to said experience, skill and knowledge.
The problem is you both want experts to be able to accurately decide issues, yet you want people who aren't beholden to the very industry they are regulating. If you're really good at, knowledgeable of and experienced in a particular industry, odds are you already work for them.
It's a catch 22 that needs regulation to mitigate the downsides while also encouraging some upside.
"We want to put logic in as few places as possible. We probably want to bake it all into the BioDiff Check routines, rather than adding secondary logic each time we decide whether to call them "
Indeed, and we're trying to show we're better at this than them...and apparently succeeding...sigh
Compared with the number of problems that need solving, few bills passed isn't a good idea.
If things are going along well then not doing much is a good thing, but when faced with the worst economic environment in almost 100 years, perhaps we should be trying to do something to fix things?
Except your theory is flatly refuted by every other civilized country in the world where there are next to no deaths by guns and we have over 100,000 annually...
Copyright is a useful and valid tool. It's been massively perverted to the point of causing active harm, but that doesn't mean the 'idea' of copyright is bad or somehow wrong.
As this site frequently points out, given the changes in technology, the digital world can let you 'ignore' copyright entirely and still make money.
That again doesn't say copyright is bad or wrong, just that there are now other ways to 'monetize' your content...which is the point of copyright. To allow the creator to monetize their content so they'll be inclined to create said content in the first place.
In the digital world it isn't nearly as clear cut anymore but copyright is still a valid and useful concept.
Sounds to me like they just don't understand how YouTube works. They think that each 'embedded' link is actually a unique copy and so they want the 'bad' ones to go dark while leaving the 'good' ones up.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Case Law
If threats to the President were made from my number, would I not be considered 'negligent' for putting such a system in place?
I fully agree there's no requirement to secure your wifi, but as the account holder I am in the end responsible for its use am I not? Perhaps not criminally liable, but certainly civilly (sp?) I would expect.
And the obligatory car analogy -
if my car is seen robbing a bank, you can bet there going to be talking to me about 'who' was using my car. Is leaving my car on the street with the keys in it 'negligent'?
Just arguing the devils advocate positions, interested in any ideas to counter them.
On the post: Publishing Company Admits That Anonymous' UDID Data Leak Was Actually Taken From Their Database
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do App developers need UDID's for?
In contacting the authorities, the company could have easily given FBI the ability to grab some data to investigate, then anonymous hacks the FBI's laptop.
Only liar in this situation is the FBI who claimed no knowledge of the situation at all.
Or they just don't know what the hell they're doing...
Anonymous has pulled off some pretty significant hacks before...what reason would they have to lie? Whereas the FBI has been caught routinely lying over the decades. They have a reputation to protect...
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re:
Like Karamel Sutra...oh wait...
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re:
It's a lot harder to monetize something if you have to pay to create the copies. In the digital world, that's free and so information is effectively infinite. Hence how you can give away your content and drive purchases to thing that aren't infinite.
In the physical world, selling actual books for instance, there's a cost to making each copy of the book and so it isn't as easy to 'give away' the content in the same manner.
It could be argued that with the advent of the internet and digital media, perhaps copyright is now an outdated concept - since vastly more people are creating content than ever before and that's the express purpose of copyright.
But as a concept it's still a valid idea; just the corruption of the implementation that's being worked out.
On the post: Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
Re: Re:
It means you already have experience and skill and knowledge over something and thus are a reasonably good candidate to work in government positions related to said experience, skill and knowledge.
The problem is you both want experts to be able to accurately decide issues, yet you want people who aren't beholden to the very industry they are regulating. If you're really good at, knowledgeable of and experienced in a particular industry, odds are you already work for them.
It's a catch 22 that needs regulation to mitigate the downsides while also encouraging some upside.
On the post: The TSA's Infamous 'Behavior Detection' In Action: Mandatory 'Chats' About Every Detail Of Your Trip
Re: Re: Re:
should have been using
"This is not Nazi Germany and this is not the U.S.S.R. -- this is the United States of America."
from the original post....oy
On the post: The TSA's Infamous 'Behavior Detection' In Action: Mandatory 'Chats' About Every Detail Of Your Trip
Re: Re:
Indeed, and we're trying to show we're better at this than them...and apparently succeeding...sigh
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Re:
Doesn't mean it isn't doable but the jobs are different...
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re:
Which is the entire point. If you introduce new technology without proper training, it's amazing how people will screw up using it.
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re:
If things are going along well then not doing much is a good thing, but when faced with the worst economic environment in almost 100 years, perhaps we should be trying to do something to fix things?
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re:
Can we start with small children in cars?
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re:
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re:
On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument
Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
As this site frequently points out, given the changes in technology, the digital world can let you 'ignore' copyright entirely and still make money.
That again doesn't say copyright is bad or wrong, just that there are now other ways to 'monetize' your content...which is the point of copyright. To allow the creator to monetize their content so they'll be inclined to create said content in the first place.
In the digital world it isn't nearly as clear cut anymore but copyright is still a valid and useful concept.
On the post: Garry Kasparov Was Arrested Outside Of Pussy Riot Courthouse
Riiiiiiiight
Well yes that would be logical...now if the last 12 years could be ignored, perhaps we *might* (cough cough) qualify...
On the post: Ukraine Takes Down Demonoid As A Gift To The US Government
Re: Seized by the government?
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Re: Re:
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Malice or stupidity?
Next >>