It was wrong, and it looks like it's going to be a very short court case.
This was/is wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin. The good news is it looks like it should be a fairly short case. There are just a few simple questions that need to be answered and then it's all over 'cept the punishment.
(Questions and answers, that if answered this way would be real bad for the school district.)
Q. Did the school issue the laptop in question to the minor defendant (MD)?
A. yes.
Q. Did the school put software on said laptop that allows the school to surreptitiously view the user remotely?
A. yes.
Q. Was MD or parents of MD every notified of the presence or capabilities of aforementioned software?
A. no.
Q. Was MD presented with a print out of an image captured with the aforementioned software by the aforementioned laptop?
A. yes.
Q. Was the aforementioned laptop located on school property when the image in question was captured?
A. no.
Q. Was the permission of either the MD obtained before said image was obtained?
A. no.
Judge: I find the defendant guilty of ... .
The sad thing is that but for an over zealous administrator the parents and children may have never known about this software. Since the administrator presented the student with proof that he had used the software on the laptop in order to justify punishing him for whatever inappropriate thing he believed the student to have done, the school district is going to have a _very_ hard time claiming it was only there/used to track stolen laptops.....
Until we get laws with teeth, lawsuits are still a needed evil
Unfortunately we don't have any privacy laws worth mentioning here in the States. Until we do, lawsuits like this are the only thing that will put a little sting into stupid behavior.
While it's usually true that only the lawyers make out in class action suits, what's the alternative? Class action lawsuits are needed in an attempt to cause a company some noticeable pain in a manner that's profitable enough for a lawyer to bother. If a company skims $1.00 off of a person's account who's going to afford a lawyer to take them to court over it? If they do that to 12,000,000 customers it's just too profitable for them not to.
What Google's really guilty of, secondary usage of information about people, is just a symptom of the larger issue. That issue is that companies have very little restriction on what they can do with the information about you they have. Once they have it, they can do what they want, and if you don't like it, too bad.
Of course there are certain odd exceptions, I mean really odd. In the U.S. you can't share medical information under HIPPA, _unless_ you aren't in the medical field. Your doctor can't share your info with the pharma company, but it can with someone who isn't in health care. They can then turn around and resell that data back to other doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Since they aren't in the health care field it doesn't apply to them. A veritable industry of health information laundering has sprung up to exploit this loophole. In fact all HIPPA is known to most people for is the silly notice your doctor/pharmacy/etc. show you once a year and have you sign a statement that you've seen it. If you ever actually bother to read it, it's full of text telling you that they _are_going_to_SHARE_ your information, and if you don't like it too bad.
Verizon can sell records of who you call on the phone, and Google can let the world know everyone that you've ever texted, emailed, or communicated with through their services in a pathetic attempt to gain instant social networking credibility/relevance. But, due to the happenstance of an elected official's video tape rentals embarrassing him, it's a federal crime to share the record of the video's you rent (just ask Blockbuster and Facebook).
Companies (and especially the Government) shouldn't be allowed to reuse and information about you for any purpose other than the one you gave it to them for and can only be collected for a specific/narrow purpose. No boilerplate, "by using this site you agree that we can use your info however we like in perpetuity" nonsense.
They should be forced to destroy any copies of that data at your request, restricted only be a legitimate business need (by legitimate I mean if they charge you by the month they get to keep your information until the end of the month so that they know what to charge and where to send the bill)
They should be forced to allow you to inspect any information they have about you.
Breaches of this law should be punishable by real fines, _AND_ prison time.
The other major change that needs to be made is to make it impossible for consumers to waive the above or any other consumer protection law regardless of what the contract may state. Companies can negotiate arbitration or venue restrictions, customers shouldn't have to as the cost of buying things or using services.
Until that happens we will need to keep hitting companies like Google with the class-action-clue-stick until they wise up.
Google is way too 'spookish' for me. They are constantly trying to get as much information about everyone, keep it _forever_, and refuse to ever delete it. Even their half hearted 'anonymization', that they can reverse when you're not looking, reeks.
They have a great search engine, the best I've used so far. So that's what I use, _for_searching_. I make it a point _not_ to use any of their other services, to block google-analytics links in AdBlock and to flush any google or google related cookies (including flash based ones) every time I start/stop my browsing.
Unless/until Google starts showing some restraint/respect I won't use any of their services, nor will I recommend them to anyone else. Unfortunately it will take laws, laws with real teeth, to get Google to start acting responsibly.
With mass-wiretapping friendly people like Bush-Obama I'm not holding my breath of it happening anytime soon.
I've been saying for years, things won't get straightened out until we divorce the infrastructure from the ISP's.
The interstate highway system is run by the government and everyone's allowed to drive on it. If we relied on a handful of companies to build maintain the roads, no one would ever leave their house and everything would cost an arm and a leg.
Back in the days of dial up the phone company ran the infrastructure (the POTS system) and there were dozens of ISP's competing for your business using them. If EarthLink got to big for its bridges then you could switch to AOL, or some local ISP.
Then the telephone company _became_ your ISP and as the articles author pointed out, Congress allowed them to force everyone else off. Cable operators (already having a monopoly in most of their areas) got into the act of being ISP's as well. What happened? Conflict of interest (low caps to keep you from dropping cable TV, messing with Skype to keep you from dropping your land line), no competition, increasing costs, little to no innovation.
We are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the 1st world. It's a shame really, seeing as we 'invented' the internet.
What needs to happen is that the infrastructure has to be run/maintained by one entity (could even be a non-profit or the government) that would allow everyone else to use that infrastructure. You could use it for yourself (large company, municipality, university) or become an ISP and offer service to the public.
It could be modeled on the road system, paid for by user fees. The feds would maintain the major links between states and other countries (think interstates). The states would control secondary links (think the state highway system). Local municipalities would manage local connections to people's homes and businesses (think Main St.). Verizon, AOL, John's Happy Internet could all compete to offer services to the public at large.
The job of the infrastructure entities would be to maintain efficient network connects, period. It doesn't matter if it's Linux distro's, telemedicine, or last week's American Idol. What is flowing down the pipes isn't their concern.
Network neutrality falls out of this setup naturally.
We don't need blanket licenses, what we need are no copyrights.
Yep, you read that correctly. We don't need more bureaucrats, collection societies, or other leaches draining the collective culture dry.
If the purpose of copyright was to encourage the creation of creative works, I think it needs to be retired. More works are being created by people that won't collect a penny directly off their works than by those that do. Guess what? That isn't stopping anyone from creating. All that copyright is doing these days is keeping our collective culture from us. The only one's winning are large companies that have gotten way too fat suckling at the public teet. Well them and the lawyers.
If you can't figure out a way to make money from creative works without copyright, then you really need to be in a different line of business. Funny thing, most of the people creating actually are. Creative works should be attributed (assuming the author wants to be known) and downstream uses should be credited. Obscurity is and has always been a worse fate for a creator than anything else.
There you go, simple. Let us enjoy our culture and get back to actually doing things. We've wasted too much time/money/effort thinking that we can 'own' ideas and performances.
If you are going to enlighten readers such as 'Modplan' about how things like how the BitTorrent protocol works and why it was designed the way it was, you might first want to brush up on that yourself. Unfortunately if you did it wouldn't support the point you are trying to make.
BitTorrent was invented as a _more_efficient_ way of sharing large files. It had nothing to do with the Napster decision, eDonkey and Gnutella are an attempt to decentralize P2P. Until recently there was no attempt to hide the identities, nor the payload of any bit torrent transfers. In fact it's so much more efficient (especially in terms of cost) than a simple FTP site that more and more people are finding uses for the protocol. Spotify, WorldOfWarcraft, and of course Linux Distro's, just to name a few.
Since it's such an efficient way to share large files, it should have come as no surprise that people would use it to share movies and television shows. It's only recently with ISP's trying to 'shape' bit torrent transfers and companies trying to extort settlements from internet users that an attempt has been made to obfuscate the protocol and those making use of it.
So contrary to your point, P2P can be a very efficient way to share files. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1 other person, go FTP. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1,000,000 people (especially if it's a large file) you are much better of using bit torrent.
Um, I believe that suicide is already illegal. In fact it's probably one of the only laws that, if you succeed in committing it, they can't really arrest you for it.
It's impossible to be a network hog. The problem is simply one of overselling.
No matter what application you are running; email, web surfing, HD-video streaming, bit torrent, you can only use as much bandwidth as the plan you are on. If you have a 3Mb/1Mb ADSL connection you can't magically start using 100Mb/1Mb just because you start up a bit torrent client to get/share Fedora 12.
The problem is that until recently even though you may be on a 3Mb/1Mb or even a 50Mb/5Mb internet plan, there just wasn't that much to use it for. Most people would use a fraction of that amount and only for a short time. Traffic was very bursty. Now that we have P2P, and video streaming that isn't the case.
Suppose the ISP has 100Mb of available bandwidth (we're just going to consider downstream and I'm making these numbers up to illustrate my point). They could sell 1 100Mb plan, or 10 10Mb plans, or 100 1Mb plan, ideally.
Previously most people were only using 0.1Mb on average, with an occasional spike to FTP something, reading their email, surfing mostly html web pages, IMing each other. So they sold 1000 1Mb plans and then 'upgraded' all of these people to 5Mb plans. Small bursty amounts, other than the occasional slowdown, not really a problem.
People discover P2P, bit torrent, streaming video, now people start using the 5Mb they have been paying for. Opps. The 'average' user is using 2Mb instead of 0.1Mb. The technically inclined are actually using their full 5Mb. What do you think happens? 990 users all trying to use 2Mb at the same time (1980Mb), 10 users are trying to use 5Mb (50Mb). That's 2030Mb of bandwidth, but the ISP only has 100Mb.
So what do they do? Build up their service to 10,000Mb? Naw, just 'network manage' people back down to 0.1Mb and blame it on the nasty 'bandwidth hogs' that are trying to use their full 5Mb. P2P, bot torrent, etc. will FLOOD the INTERNET. "We must stop them before it's too late!!!"
I call B.S.
The problem is that people are actually trying to use the service they were sold. There aren't any 'hogs' and no one can use more bandwidth than they've paid for. The only pigs in the pen are the ISP's.
It's NOT going after the users, just removing content
The anon that post "This is stupid" apparently doesn't get it.
This ISN'T going after the users, this is about removing material from the web. If the parties complaining had an actual complaint then they would be filing papers against the actual authors. What they want is the stuff taken down. Perhaps it's fair use, perhaps it's just embarrassing, for whatever reason they can't just tell the ISP to pull it (section 230) so they are purposely filing against the wrong parties in order to force the information off the net.
If they really wanted the authors to pay for something they actually did that was illegal, then they would have sued the actual author.
Perhaps that's just what the EFF is hoping for, some silly entity to serve them with a bogus DMCA take down notice.
Since they received it, they would immediately be a party to it. They could show the world how they feel a take down notice _should_ be handled. As a bonus, since they obviously think the items they host were recipients of bogus take down requests in order for them to post it themselves, they can sue for damages and help establish the case law to allow others to easily successfully sue overzealous entities.
Definately more popular with Science Fiction shows
I hadn't heard of a non-science fiction show doing this until now.
Let's see (off the top of my head);
Star Trek
Babylon 5
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
FireFly (amazing as it only lasted 1 season)
Television shows connecting with their fans in a big way. In fact I believe it was the fans that kept Babylon 5 alive for all five seasons, Buffy for all seven and it was the fan base that got Serenity made after FireFly was canceled.
Copied off the Air and 'shared' much better again....
Lobo's comment is just what I was thinking.
If you _want_ to buy the series, you can't because they can't release it.
..but if you go to one of many sites you can download the original airing, with commercials stripped, in handy dandy DivX or similar format, free of charge.
Of course it's those horrible people who want everything for free that is hurting the industry, it couldn't possibly be greed preventing them from even offering a product people clearly want to pay for, naw...
How do they determine who and how much to pay them?
Why isn't the subject of the story apparently getting _any_ money?
Perhaps all the ASCAP/BMI artists that frequent this board can share with us whether or not they have received _any_ money from either of these organizations....
Re: Re: Pricacy - or lack thereof - biggest issue.
The biggest differences between Google search and Google books are:
Currently you can search via someone else, not possible if Google gets the exclusive rights to orphan works or other titles.
Currently you can browse books at a library, pay cash at enumerable book stores, if/when books go digital (and some books aren't in print so the only way would be via Google books) then you no longer have that option.
People's books reveal much more about them than they might realize. When it comes to privacy, this country (US of A) sucks. Google is worse than most.
The biggest problem is privacy. If Google (or anyone else) is the gatekeeper to tomorrows library/bookstore you can forget about privacy. Google, and by extension the government or anyone else will know every book you read, what titles you've scanned, etc. etc.
It's no one's business what books you buy or choose to read.
Since the Patriot Act allowed the government to get access to the books you've checked out at your local library, many libraries have taken to destroying those logs. If Google is in charge what are the changes of that happening? They still won't delete the records they keep of your searches. When pressed they propose easily reversible 'solutions'.
It seems if you follow the link in the link you linked to, (try saying that five times fast ;) it appears that the Avast blocking was a 'false positive' and has been corrected in a latter update.
This reminds me of "Prohibition". Drinking alcohol illegal, everyone and their grandmother doing it, everyone's guilty, law repealed. Sure beats arresting everyone.
People infringing on copyright, everyone's doing it (well a large portion of the populous anyway) it's even less detrimental to people than drinking. Heck it's not even a 'criminal offense'. You would think the sane thing to do would be to make it legal. Instead I read about rampping up the punishment, doing away with due process, and just fining/cutting people off.
How about we vote for making it legal to 'infringe copyright' for personal use. Couple that with copyright must be specifically 'asked for', term limited to a twelve year term with the ability to request a single twelve year extension, and a liberal 'fair use'.
Then we can stop trying to use copyright to hold back the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for unlimited Times to Authors and Inventors and Multinational Corporations, the exclusive Right to Writings and Discoveries or any other utterance.
*yes, I realize we are talking Great Britain not the U.S. but I think they too should be legalizing not criminalizing.
I don't bank online... the risk is withthe wrong people.
Well the banks and credit unions I've dealt with all say the same thing;
IE only
4 digit (that's numbers only folks) password.
Anything _bad_ happens and _you_ assume all risk.
My response is to have nothing to do with online banking.
I didn't set up the rules.
I didn't code their web site.
I don't have any say in their verification process.
It's their site, if they want me to bank online (which is much more cost effective than having me deal with a live human teller) then they need to assume some of the risk.
With a credit card, your responsible for the first $50, they eat the rest if it's used fraudulently. Guess what, credit cards are much more secure as a result. You only use your card locally for purchases less than $100. A charge shows up for a $2,500 purchase in Mexico City, you get a call from your credit card company asking if this is a legit purchase. Why? Because if it isn't they eat it.
Security for most companies is an externality. It doesn't directly effect their bottom line, it effects yours. The problem of course is that only they are in a position to fix it. They won't as long as it's not their problem. Once we make it their problem, then they'll have an incentive clean up their acts.
FCC should get involved / FCC shouldn't
Apple should be forced to open up / People should buy something else if they don't like it.
Sometimes we are talking about software, and perhaps, just a little, compatibility et. al. makes sense. We are talking about HARDWARE. (Yes, yes, we are talking about software compatibility _OF_ hardware. Doesn't change what I'm about to write.) As in this is a physical thing, book, table, phone, car that's I've bought and the seller (Apple) wants to dictate to the buyer (you) what you can or can't do with it _AFTER_ they've sold it to you. The apologists are screaming, "If you don't like Apple's rules then don't buy that product." That's not really an answer.
If we look at it through the ever popular device of the car analogy it becomes painfully obvious just how senseless that response it.
If I buy a car from Hyundai and they said that I can only use Hyundai parts in it. Should I be able to install Motocraft spark plugs (assuming Motocraft makes compatible plugs)? I can hear the Hyundai apologists yelling, "If you don't like that policy, then just don't buy a Hyundai."
Perhaps Hyundai has a deal with Exxon, they'll sell you a Hyundai at a discount, but you have to use Exxon gas for two years. They even install a special hexagonal opening in the gas tank that only special Exxon gas pumps use. People who don't want to use Exxon, perhaps some other company sells cheaper gas or there aren't any Exxon stations in their neck of the woods, create a Hyundai gas tank to standard gas tank adapter so that you can fill it up with gas from any gas station. Hyundai claims that this is stealing their intellectual property, and that it's illegal to adapt Hyundai cars to use standard gas pumps. If people are allowed to do it then we are helping the terrorists, and the drug dealers and all sorts of _bad_things_ will happen.
Finally, Google gets into the automobile industry by selling a new engine module that plugs into your motor and gets you 15 more miles per gallon (it also sends a copy of every where you were driving to Google servers, but we'll ignore that for now). Hyundai says you can't install that because it duplicates existing functionality, and of course, if you get more miles per gallon Exxon sells less gas and Hyundai gets a smaller cut. You see Hyundai has established a process where all third party parts have to be sold through their store and they have the right to approve or disprove and Hyundai parts. It's all for the good of their customers you see. The Hyundai store has over 50,000 addons so far. Most are various color and style mirrors, fenders, and a horn that sounds like your car is farting. Serious addons, ones that improve the handling, lighting, fuel efficiency, or even the types of music you can play are randomly rejected. But hey, if you don't like it, you can always buy another car, so it's O.K.
That sound about right? If Hyundai can do it today, then perhaps Ford will do it tomorrow. If Apple can do it today, then perhaps Microsoft will do it tomorrow. You can't run whatever software you want on your iPhone, or your PC. We're not saying they have to support it, but they shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from trying yourself. Just like I can install whatever hardware/software in my car once I've bought it. I should have the same rights with my cell phone, my PC, my books.
The government should be stepping in to make sure this is the case. If you modify the base band radio in your cell phone then you may not be able to legally use it, just as if you elevate you car too high, or don't put any seat belts and directionals on your car, you can't drive it on the street.
Perhaps it should be the FCC, perhaps someone else.
Let me start by saying that I don't have the kind of disposable income that would be required to own an iphone.
Having said that, I think that the iphone was/is a great idea. From the ones I've seen, it looks like it's got a cool UI. You can load 'real programs' on it, surf the web, listen to music and make/receive phone calls. What the Palm should have been. All it needs now is a little more horse power, real keyboard (forearm board would work) and heads up display (think screen projected in your glasses). The only computer/phone you would ever need...... But my imagination is getting the better of me.
Before the iphone, we had SymbianOS, WindowsMobile, serviceable. Now we have Android, WebOS, Moblin. Apple opened the eyes of developers and the public. For that we should thank them. For their choice of ATT's horrific network and classical mobile operator insistence on hobbling phone features to inflate their bottom line, they are properly castigated.
Add to that Jobs and company's legendary instance on having 'total control'. I am left shaking my head. When I read about 'jailbreaking' = apocalypse, my jaw dropped. I realize they have a sweet thing right now (total lock down + complete control of all apps and a 30% toll booth), but to write that to try and dissuade a DMCA exception? What were they thinking?
Hopefully the exception is granted. You should be allowed to do what you want with the things you've bought. They don't have to support you, but it shouldn't be illegal either.
I also hope that Google, Nokia, heck even Microsoft go beyond the iphone; better, more open, cheaper. If Apple doesn't loosen it's grip on the golden goose it may just end up choking it to death.
On the post: School Accused Of Spying On Kids In Their Homes With Spyware That Secretly Activated Webcams
It was wrong, and it looks like it's going to be a very short court case.
(Questions and answers, that if answered this way would be real bad for the school district.)
Q. Did the school issue the laptop in question to the minor defendant (MD)?
A. yes.
Q. Did the school put software on said laptop that allows the school to surreptitiously view the user remotely?
A. yes.
Q. Was MD or parents of MD every notified of the presence or capabilities of aforementioned software?
A. no.
Q. Was MD presented with a print out of an image captured with the aforementioned software by the aforementioned laptop?
A. yes.
Q. Was the aforementioned laptop located on school property when the image in question was captured?
A. no.
Q. Was the permission of either the MD obtained before said image was obtained?
A. no.
Judge: I find the defendant guilty of ... .
The sad thing is that but for an over zealous administrator the parents and children may have never known about this software. Since the administrator presented the student with proof that he had used the software on the laptop in order to justify punishing him for whatever inappropriate thing he believed the student to have done, the school district is going to have a _very_ hard time claiming it was only there/used to track stolen laptops.....
On the post: And, Of Course, Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Google Over Buzz
Until we get laws with teeth, lawsuits are still a needed evil
While it's usually true that only the lawyers make out in class action suits, what's the alternative? Class action lawsuits are needed in an attempt to cause a company some noticeable pain in a manner that's profitable enough for a lawyer to bother. If a company skims $1.00 off of a person's account who's going to afford a lawyer to take them to court over it? If they do that to 12,000,000 customers it's just too profitable for them not to.
What Google's really guilty of, secondary usage of information about people, is just a symptom of the larger issue. That issue is that companies have very little restriction on what they can do with the information about you they have. Once they have it, they can do what they want, and if you don't like it, too bad.
Of course there are certain odd exceptions, I mean really odd. In the U.S. you can't share medical information under HIPPA, _unless_ you aren't in the medical field. Your doctor can't share your info with the pharma company, but it can with someone who isn't in health care. They can then turn around and resell that data back to other doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Since they aren't in the health care field it doesn't apply to them. A veritable industry of health information laundering has sprung up to exploit this loophole. In fact all HIPPA is known to most people for is the silly notice your doctor/pharmacy/etc. show you once a year and have you sign a statement that you've seen it. If you ever actually bother to read it, it's full of text telling you that they _are_going_to_SHARE_ your information, and if you don't like it too bad.
Verizon can sell records of who you call on the phone, and Google can let the world know everyone that you've ever texted, emailed, or communicated with through their services in a pathetic attempt to gain instant social networking credibility/relevance. But, due to the happenstance of an elected official's video tape rentals embarrassing him, it's a federal crime to share the record of the video's you rent (just ask Blockbuster and Facebook).
Companies (and especially the Government) shouldn't be allowed to reuse and information about you for any purpose other than the one you gave it to them for and can only be collected for a specific/narrow purpose. No boilerplate, "by using this site you agree that we can use your info however we like in perpetuity" nonsense.
They should be forced to destroy any copies of that data at your request, restricted only be a legitimate business need (by legitimate I mean if they charge you by the month they get to keep your information until the end of the month so that they know what to charge and where to send the bill)
They should be forced to allow you to inspect any information they have about you.
Breaches of this law should be punishable by real fines, _AND_ prison time.
The other major change that needs to be made is to make it impossible for consumers to waive the above or any other consumer protection law regardless of what the contract may state. Companies can negotiate arbitration or venue restrictions, customers shouldn't have to as the cost of buying things or using services.
Until that happens we will need to keep hitting companies like Google with the class-action-clue-stick until they wise up.
On the post: Missed Use Case? Google Buzz Reveals Who You Chat With The Most To Everyone
That's why I only use Google for search.
They have a great search engine, the best I've used so far. So that's what I use, _for_searching_. I make it a point _not_ to use any of their other services, to block google-analytics links in AdBlock and to flush any google or google related cookies (including flash based ones) every time I start/stop my browsing.
Unless/until Google starts showing some restraint/respect I won't use any of their services, nor will I recommend them to anyone else. Unfortunately it will take laws, laws with real teeth, to get Google to start acting responsibly.
With mass-wiretapping friendly people like Bush-Obama I'm not holding my breath of it happening anytime soon.
Google and the NSA, like two peas in a pod.
On the post: What Would Broadband Competition Look Like?
Seperate the infrastructure from the ISP
The interstate highway system is run by the government and everyone's allowed to drive on it. If we relied on a handful of companies to build maintain the roads, no one would ever leave their house and everything would cost an arm and a leg.
Back in the days of dial up the phone company ran the infrastructure (the POTS system) and there were dozens of ISP's competing for your business using them. If EarthLink got to big for its bridges then you could switch to AOL, or some local ISP.
Then the telephone company _became_ your ISP and as the articles author pointed out, Congress allowed them to force everyone else off. Cable operators (already having a monopoly in most of their areas) got into the act of being ISP's as well. What happened? Conflict of interest (low caps to keep you from dropping cable TV, messing with Skype to keep you from dropping your land line), no competition, increasing costs, little to no innovation.
We are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the 1st world. It's a shame really, seeing as we 'invented' the internet.
What needs to happen is that the infrastructure has to be run/maintained by one entity (could even be a non-profit or the government) that would allow everyone else to use that infrastructure. You could use it for yourself (large company, municipality, university) or become an ISP and offer service to the public.
It could be modeled on the road system, paid for by user fees. The feds would maintain the major links between states and other countries (think interstates). The states would control secondary links (think the state highway system). Local municipalities would manage local connections to people's homes and businesses (think Main St.). Verizon, AOL, John's Happy Internet could all compete to offer services to the public at large.
The job of the infrastructure entities would be to maintain efficient network connects, period. It doesn't matter if it's Linux distro's, telemedicine, or last week's American Idol. What is flowing down the pipes isn't their concern.
Network neutrality falls out of this setup naturally.
Just a thought.
On the post: Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?
We don't need blanket licenses, what we need are no copyrights.
If the purpose of copyright was to encourage the creation of creative works, I think it needs to be retired. More works are being created by people that won't collect a penny directly off their works than by those that do. Guess what? That isn't stopping anyone from creating. All that copyright is doing these days is keeping our collective culture from us. The only one's winning are large companies that have gotten way too fat suckling at the public teet. Well them and the lawyers.
If you can't figure out a way to make money from creative works without copyright, then you really need to be in a different line of business. Funny thing, most of the people creating actually are. Creative works should be attributed (assuming the author wants to be known) and downstream uses should be credited. Obscurity is and has always been a worse fate for a creator than anything else.
There you go, simple. Let us enjoy our culture and get back to actually doing things. We've wasted too much time/money/effort thinking that we can 'own' ideas and performances.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Bit Torrent NOT developed for obfusification
If you are going to enlighten readers such as 'Modplan' about how things like how the BitTorrent protocol works and why it was designed the way it was, you might first want to brush up on that yourself. Unfortunately if you did it wouldn't support the point you are trying to make.
BitTorrent was invented as a _more_efficient_ way of sharing large files. It had nothing to do with the Napster decision, eDonkey and Gnutella are an attempt to decentralize P2P. Until recently there was no attempt to hide the identities, nor the payload of any bit torrent transfers. In fact it's so much more efficient (especially in terms of cost) than a simple FTP site that more and more people are finding uses for the protocol. Spotify, WorldOfWarcraft, and of course Linux Distro's, just to name a few.
Since it's such an efficient way to share large files, it should have come as no surprise that people would use it to share movies and television shows. It's only recently with ISP's trying to 'shape' bit torrent transfers and companies trying to extort settlements from internet users that an attempt has been made to obfuscate the protocol and those making use of it.
So contrary to your point, P2P can be a very efficient way to share files. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1 other person, go FTP. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1,000,000 people (especially if it's a large file) you are much better of using bit torrent.
Here's a couple of links to get you started;
http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%2 8protocol%29
On the post: Indiana Senators Rush To Put In Place Sexting Law When They Clearly Don't Understand Sexting
I believe suicide is already illegal
On the post: Should We Add Bandwidth Hogs To The Myth List With That Impending Exaflood?
Impossible to be a "Hog"
No matter what application you are running; email, web surfing, HD-video streaming, bit torrent, you can only use as much bandwidth as the plan you are on. If you have a 3Mb/1Mb ADSL connection you can't magically start using 100Mb/1Mb just because you start up a bit torrent client to get/share Fedora 12.
The problem is that until recently even though you may be on a 3Mb/1Mb or even a 50Mb/5Mb internet plan, there just wasn't that much to use it for. Most people would use a fraction of that amount and only for a short time. Traffic was very bursty. Now that we have P2P, and video streaming that isn't the case.
Suppose the ISP has 100Mb of available bandwidth (we're just going to consider downstream and I'm making these numbers up to illustrate my point). They could sell 1 100Mb plan, or 10 10Mb plans, or 100 1Mb plan, ideally.
Previously most people were only using 0.1Mb on average, with an occasional spike to FTP something, reading their email, surfing mostly html web pages, IMing each other. So they sold 1000 1Mb plans and then 'upgraded' all of these people to 5Mb plans. Small bursty amounts, other than the occasional slowdown, not really a problem.
People discover P2P, bit torrent, streaming video, now people start using the 5Mb they have been paying for. Opps. The 'average' user is using 2Mb instead of 0.1Mb. The technically inclined are actually using their full 5Mb. What do you think happens? 990 users all trying to use 2Mb at the same time (1980Mb), 10 users are trying to use 5Mb (50Mb). That's 2030Mb of bandwidth, but the ISP only has 100Mb.
So what do they do? Build up their service to 10,000Mb? Naw, just 'network manage' people back down to 0.1Mb and blame it on the nasty 'bandwidth hogs' that are trying to use their full 5Mb. P2P, bot torrent, etc. will FLOOD the INTERNET. "We must stop them before it's too late!!!"
I call B.S.
The problem is that people are actually trying to use the service they were sold. There aren't any 'hogs' and no one can use more bandwidth than they've paid for. The only pigs in the pen are the ISP's.
On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline
It's NOT going after the users, just removing content
This ISN'T going after the users, this is about removing material from the web. If the parties complaining had an actual complaint then they would be filing papers against the actual authors. What they want is the stuff taken down. Perhaps it's fair use, perhaps it's just embarrassing, for whatever reason they can't just tell the ISP to pull it (section 230) so they are purposely filing against the wrong parties in order to force the information off the net.
If they really wanted the authors to pay for something they actually did that was illegal, then they would have sued the actual author.
On the post: EFF Launches Takedown Hall Of Shame
Perhaps EFF is hoping for a DMCA takedown notice?
Since they received it, they would immediately be a party to it. They could show the world how they feel a take down notice _should_ be handled. As a bonus, since they obviously think the items they host were recipients of bogus take down requests in order for them to post it themselves, they can sue for damages and help establish the case law to allow others to easily successfully sue overzealous entities.
From the EFF's point of view it's a win/win.
On the post: Why Don't More TV Shows Try To Connect With Fans?
Definately more popular with Science Fiction shows
Let's see (off the top of my head);
Star Trek
Babylon 5
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
FireFly (amazing as it only lasted 1 season)
Television shows connecting with their fans in a big way. In fact I believe it was the fans that kept Babylon 5 alive for all five seasons, Buffy for all seven and it was the fan base that got Serenity made after FireFly was canceled.
On the post: Werewolf TV Show Blocked From DVD Release Due To Music Licensing
Copied off the Air and 'shared' much better again....
If you _want_ to buy the series, you can't because they can't release it.
..but if you go to one of many sites you can download the original airing, with commercials stripped, in handy dandy DivX or similar format, free of charge.
Of course it's those horrible people who want everything for free that is hurting the industry, it couldn't possibly be greed preventing them from even offering a product people clearly want to pay for, naw...
On the post: How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
How do they determine who and how much to pay them?
Why isn't the subject of the story apparently getting _any_ money?
Perhaps all the ASCAP/BMI artists that frequent this board can share with us whether or not they have received _any_ money from either of these organizations....
On the post: Complaints Against Google Book Scanning Project Reach Ridiculous Levels
Re: Re: Pricacy - or lack thereof - biggest issue.
Currently you can search via someone else, not possible if Google gets the exclusive rights to orphan works or other titles.
Currently you can browse books at a library, pay cash at enumerable book stores, if/when books go digital (and some books aren't in print so the only way would be via Google books) then you no longer have that option.
People's books reveal much more about them than they might realize. When it comes to privacy, this country (US of A) sucks. Google is worse than most.
On the post: Complaints Against Google Book Scanning Project Reach Ridiculous Levels
Pricacy - or lack thereof - biggest issue.
It's no one's business what books you buy or choose to read.
Since the Patriot Act allowed the government to get access to the books you've checked out at your local library, many libraries have taken to destroying those logs. If Google is in charge what are the changes of that happening? They still won't delete the records they keep of your searches. When pressed they propose easily reversible 'solutions'.
On the post: Is Assisting With Assisting With Assisting With Potential Copyright Infringement Illegal?
Update - Avast blocking = false positive
(eventual link = http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=48004.msg405156#msg405156)
On the post: UK Gov't Now Supporting 3 Strikes: Lobbyists Win Again
If everyone's doing it. Why's it still illegal?
People infringing on copyright, everyone's doing it (well a large portion of the populous anyway) it's even less detrimental to people than drinking. Heck it's not even a 'criminal offense'. You would think the sane thing to do would be to make it legal. Instead I read about rampping up the punishment, doing away with due process, and just fining/cutting people off.
How about we vote for making it legal to 'infringe copyright' for personal use. Couple that with copyright must be specifically 'asked for', term limited to a twelve year term with the ability to request a single twelve year extension, and a liberal 'fair use'.
Then we can stop trying to use copyright to hold back the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for unlimited Times to Authors and Inventors and Multinational Corporations, the exclusive Right to Writings and Discoveries or any other utterance.
*yes, I realize we are talking Great Britain not the U.S. but I think they too should be legalizing not criminalizing.
On the post: Is It ID Theft Or Was The Bank Robbed?
I don't bank online... the risk is withthe wrong people.
IE only
4 digit (that's numbers only folks) password.
Anything _bad_ happens and _you_ assume all risk.
My response is to have nothing to do with online banking.
I didn't set up the rules.
I didn't code their web site.
I don't have any say in their verification process.
It's their site, if they want me to bank online (which is much more cost effective than having me deal with a live human teller) then they need to assume some of the risk.
With a credit card, your responsible for the first $50, they eat the rest if it's used fraudulently. Guess what, credit cards are much more secure as a result. You only use your card locally for purchases less than $100. A charge shows up for a $2,500 purchase in Mexico City, you get a call from your credit card company asking if this is a legit purchase. Why? Because if it isn't they eat it.
Security for most companies is an externality. It doesn't directly effect their bottom line, it effects yours. The problem of course is that only they are in a position to fix it. They won't as long as it's not their problem. Once we make it their problem, then they'll have an incentive clean up their acts.
On the post: Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins
Time for a car analogy
Apple should be forced to open up / People should buy something else if they don't like it.
Sometimes we are talking about software, and perhaps, just a little, compatibility et. al. makes sense. We are talking about HARDWARE. (Yes, yes, we are talking about software compatibility _OF_ hardware. Doesn't change what I'm about to write.) As in this is a physical thing, book, table, phone, car that's I've bought and the seller (Apple) wants to dictate to the buyer (you) what you can or can't do with it _AFTER_ they've sold it to you. The apologists are screaming, "If you don't like Apple's rules then don't buy that product." That's not really an answer.
If we look at it through the ever popular device of the car analogy it becomes painfully obvious just how senseless that response it.
If I buy a car from Hyundai and they said that I can only use Hyundai parts in it. Should I be able to install Motocraft spark plugs (assuming Motocraft makes compatible plugs)? I can hear the Hyundai apologists yelling, "If you don't like that policy, then just don't buy a Hyundai."
Perhaps Hyundai has a deal with Exxon, they'll sell you a Hyundai at a discount, but you have to use Exxon gas for two years. They even install a special hexagonal opening in the gas tank that only special Exxon gas pumps use. People who don't want to use Exxon, perhaps some other company sells cheaper gas or there aren't any Exxon stations in their neck of the woods, create a Hyundai gas tank to standard gas tank adapter so that you can fill it up with gas from any gas station. Hyundai claims that this is stealing their intellectual property, and that it's illegal to adapt Hyundai cars to use standard gas pumps. If people are allowed to do it then we are helping the terrorists, and the drug dealers and all sorts of _bad_things_ will happen.
Finally, Google gets into the automobile industry by selling a new engine module that plugs into your motor and gets you 15 more miles per gallon (it also sends a copy of every where you were driving to Google servers, but we'll ignore that for now). Hyundai says you can't install that because it duplicates existing functionality, and of course, if you get more miles per gallon Exxon sells less gas and Hyundai gets a smaller cut. You see Hyundai has established a process where all third party parts have to be sold through their store and they have the right to approve or disprove and Hyundai parts. It's all for the good of their customers you see. The Hyundai store has over 50,000 addons so far. Most are various color and style mirrors, fenders, and a horn that sounds like your car is farting. Serious addons, ones that improve the handling, lighting, fuel efficiency, or even the types of music you can play are randomly rejected. But hey, if you don't like it, you can always buy another car, so it's O.K.
That sound about right? If Hyundai can do it today, then perhaps Ford will do it tomorrow. If Apple can do it today, then perhaps Microsoft will do it tomorrow. You can't run whatever software you want on your iPhone, or your PC. We're not saying they have to support it, but they shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from trying yourself. Just like I can install whatever hardware/software in my car once I've bought it. I should have the same rights with my cell phone, my PC, my books.
The government should be stepping in to make sure this is the case. If you modify the base band radio in your cell phone then you may not be able to legally use it, just as if you elevate you car too high, or don't put any seat belts and directionals on your car, you can't drive it on the street.
Perhaps it should be the FCC, perhaps someone else.
On the post: iPhone Haters Are Stick-Shifters In An Automatic World
My $0.02 worth (for what it's worth).
Having said that, I think that the iphone was/is a great idea. From the ones I've seen, it looks like it's got a cool UI. You can load 'real programs' on it, surf the web, listen to music and make/receive phone calls. What the Palm should have been. All it needs now is a little more horse power, real keyboard (forearm board would work) and heads up display (think screen projected in your glasses). The only computer/phone you would ever need...... But my imagination is getting the better of me.
Before the iphone, we had SymbianOS, WindowsMobile, serviceable. Now we have Android, WebOS, Moblin. Apple opened the eyes of developers and the public. For that we should thank them. For their choice of ATT's horrific network and classical mobile operator insistence on hobbling phone features to inflate their bottom line, they are properly castigated.
Add to that Jobs and company's legendary instance on having 'total control'. I am left shaking my head. When I read about 'jailbreaking' = apocalypse, my jaw dropped. I realize they have a sweet thing right now (total lock down + complete control of all apps and a 30% toll booth), but to write that to try and dissuade a DMCA exception? What were they thinking?
Hopefully the exception is granted. You should be allowed to do what you want with the things you've bought. They don't have to support you, but it shouldn't be illegal either.
I also hope that Google, Nokia, heck even Microsoft go beyond the iphone; better, more open, cheaper. If Apple doesn't loosen it's grip on the golden goose it may just end up choking it to death.
Next >>