"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" - WIkipedia.
The person posting is attacking me personally and trying to raise my ire. All it did was make me laugh, you would think Leigh would have better things to do (yes, he is very transparent!).
The goal of the troll was to take the discussion off my points and onto me personally. I guess by answering, I have fed the troll here, but honestly, you gets need to start flagging people who do this sort of thing. It really does take away from the whole discussion, don't you think?
My point is that the channels will be paying the various sports leagues for however long the contracts run. They signed on the bottom line, so they will find the money some how and pay for it - unless they go tits up. But the change in viewing habits and income levels is a really big deal and will have serious knock on effects through the sports.
NASCAR is facing that very problem. The TV deals are nice, and they are filling in the coffers for now. But the teams are having a hard time finding sponsors, the races are rapidly losing attendance, and the elephant in the room is that the TV ratings have declined significantly. While their TV deals do run for a few more years, it's very likely that when it comes time to renegotiate, they will find themselves backing into a corner, and forced to accept a very reduced deal.
The trickle down of course is that the teams can't afford as much staff and goodies, the driver are getting paid less, and experienced drivers are coming out of contract and not getting rehired. It's a potential death spiral.
Yet, on the other side, the public loves sports. The Superbowl is one of the most watched events every year. Where is the tipping point? How much sports can we live without before we need it bad enough again?
"Citation and definition needed, and if it's really that obvious, and they actually are involved, then it would be trivial for the police/government to go after the sites in question assuming they can be bothered to do some gorram work."
Prostitution is like drug dealing. With thousands of cases and plenty of caselaw, the workers have developed systems, processes, and keywords that are just this side of legal when taken individually (as the law generally does) but adds up quickly and obviously to something obviously bigger. Here's a screen shot (from Fastcompany) of a SXSW "special" promoted in backpage:
What "skills" does she have that are unbelievable and relevant to being an escort and not a prostitute? Conversational skills? Can she uncork wine with just her mind power? One look at the ad and you know exactly what this girl is selling.
Now, on the head of a legal pin, you could say that without a successful prosecution of this girl long after the fact, Backpage would have no way to know that she is a hooker. That would require that they are perhaps the most ignorant people on the planet.
"Someone has to actually be shown to have broken the law in order to be investigated/prosecuted under the law. Crazy concept, I know."
Backpage's mistake (in this case) appears to be helping the girls / pimps write ads. That is a mistake. It also shows that they are clearly very much aware of what the ads are for. It is not hard to infer that the rates they charge for ads is profiting from prostitution.
"Except they aren't. They're proposing a 'solution' that will cause massive harm, and will merely make the 'blight' harder to find and address."
OMG, you almost got it man! Making the "blight" harder to find is the entire goal. Prostitutes / pimps market and advertise because they need more clients. They need to be exposed to the public in the hope of finding someone who needs the action. Places like Backpage make it look safe and simple, no different from ordering pizza. Dealing with criminals should be hard. It should be hard to find them, it should be hard to contact them, and you should never get the impression that it's safe or easy. If removing the ads from the online space cuts down their consumer base by (say) 20% even, that is a big deal. It's very likely to do a whole lot more than that.
Let's put it another way: Do you honestly think that, held to be accountable for the content of these ads, that Backpage would run them? The answer is no. They know it's prostitution. They know that they are an important cog in that business, and that the business sometimes includes underage girls, sometimes includes girls who are "owned" or controlled by others (stats say that 90% of prostitutes in the US have a pimp).
"They're proposing a 'solution' that will cause massive harm"
I disagree. While Mike has made some massive arm waving claims, the reality is quite simple. airBNB will not knowingly rent premises to prostitutes, porn film makers, or party people. If they are made aware, your account is banned and you can no longer rent through their system. They take action - even without prosecution. Moreover, AirBNB has no real horse in the game, considering we are talking section 230 here, which means the rental ads, and not the customers. Oh, yeah, Mike forgot to mention that! With or without section 230 as it is or changed, AirBNB has the same liability for it's renters actions - nothing changes because it's not about what is posted.
Use critical reasoning skills and go back over his posts. Go look at who actually would really be affected. Classified ads and Cloudflare at the two most likely to have issues. Honestly, they just need to stop dealing with criminals. ;)
There are dozens (if not hundreds or even thousands) of sites like backpage out there. They profit from the prostitution trade. Your assertions seem to be that law enforcement has to wait until each one individually makes a silly mistake to deal with the on an individual case basis.
The issue that the legislative branch is trying to deal with is that these websites / companies / operators are hiding behind section 230, using it not to protect free speech but instead to protect their business models and to allow them to turn a blind eye. It is a situation that is intolerable enough that they are actually likely to pass bi-partisan legislation to deal with it.
Waiting a decade or more for a company like backpage to make a mistake is not fixing the underlying problem. Using their (potential) error as a reason to turn a blind eye on all of the other similar situations out there is appallingly bad. There is a problem, and we should be happy that the legislative branch working to deal with what is truly a blight on society.
The real issue here is that television contracts are often signed for extended periods of time, and cannot and will not adjust with the actual viewership, until there is a major correction.
As an example, NASCAR signed their latest TV agreements in late 2012 and early 2013 for 8 and 10 years respectively. Those deals were signed when NASCAR still had reasonably high ratings - which have fallen significantly in the last 5 years. Attendance is down, viewership is down, and the "halo" effect of having NASCAR on your channel isn't that significant at this point. The sport itself is undergoing major transitions as a lack of sponsorship is driving some teams out of the sport and lowering the salaries and such all around. The latest series sponsor, Monster, is in there at a price that is reportedly about 25% of what the previous sponsor was paying, and on a much more short term basis.
Now, this gap between direct advertising and the cost of the boardcast rights is made up in no small part by subscription fees, but it is also made up by going "wall to wall" on certain sports. The latest NBA deal comes with a significant increase in NBA related programming, including preview and review shows, NBA themed interview shows, and the like. Those are relatively cheap to produce (done in house) and the ad revenue there goes to pay towards the broadcast rights. So the report you point to, while reasonable accurate in a direct way, does not consider all the ways that the content is marketed and monetized.
Since most of the sports have TV contracts that run well past 2020, it's doubtful that much will change, except perhaps what people pay for. Instead of paying for ESPN on cable, people may end up paying for the streaming version.
The money will be made and the bills will get paid, at least for another 5 to 10 years.
Dead drops were a very common concept a number of years ago, as it was a very simple way to pass a message without actually sending anything. That was back before anyone realized that pretty much everything you every do in a free mail account (like hotmail) is backed up and kept for a long time.
It's interesting that the feds were onto it and looking for ways to handle it.
I don't have to wait for you to end up in jail before I know that your "girls for an hour at your hotel escort" service is a front for prostitution.
Put it another way: If you come to me and say "let's rob a bank, I have a gun, and this is the bank" and I decline, I still have knowledge of your intent to rob a bank. I don't have to wait for your to rob the bank to have knowledge of your intent.
Yes, it can be tricky, but the image Mike is trying to paint (that airBNB would suddenly be liable for a single escort property rental) is ludicrous and laughable overhype.
Except, of course, the American legal system has been twisted and maimed by years of judgement that hamper police operations. So as an example, that sign in the store window would be meaningless without actual drugs purchased. They could just say the sign is a joke, a come on for selling snacks, what have you.
Even if drugs are sold, the legal system would generally limit legal responsibility to the single person who sold the drugs until a proper conspiracy is a proven, which would take months. In the mean time, plenty of drugs are sold.
The good senator would like companies which provide adverting and promotion space to be at least slightly responsible for the people they choose to do business with and the types of businesses they promote. He didn't say anything about sign painters - he basically talks about the internet equivalent of billboard ads or TV / Radio ads.
Well, the pirates do it by giving the shop away. You could do it by providing a version that plays to a certain point, or otherwise doesn't give all the goods away. It would also put you more directly in contact with your customers and potential customers.
The pirates aren't doing this to do you a favor - they are doing it to make ad revenue (and apparently, to mine bitcoins... another story). When they mess up (and they sometimes do) it's your reputation that is on the line, not theirs. Your game plays poorly because of a bad hacked version? Clearly your game is broken, so no sales for you!
It comes back to the same problem of comprehension:
You keep going on like sites would have to be psychic and know who people are before they accept their FIRST post or FIRST ad or FIRST rental. That is not true. Simply, they would have no knowledge?
AirBNB renting to an escort? Well, first time they would not know, but when they did know (say feedback from the owner, example, or perhaps the escort got busted) they could ban that person from their service.
They difference? They would no longer be able to turn a blind eye to repeat abusers. Once they know what someone is up to (it has been reported to them), they would be obliged to take some action to stop it happening again.
The first time out, they are not "knowing". The second time around would be entirely different.
Now, when it comes to sites like CL or Backpage, accepting ads for escorts or other adult services would be knowingly helping the very first time out of the door. Knowing that escorts are prostitutes, accepting and running an ad would most certainly be an offense.
It's less clear (and more doubtful) that they would be on the hook is someone is posting "spammy" adult items in non-adult areas. Flagging, reporting, automated scanning and the like should handle the rest in due course.
"Cloudflare: Tons of websites use Cloudflare as a CDN to provide better uptime. What if one of them involves advertisements for sex trafficking. Is Cloudflare liable? After all, its CDN and anti-DDoS technology helped "facilitate" the service..."
Same thing - once Cloudflare is made aware (aka, they have knowledge) they would need to act. Until then the law clearly states that without knowledge, there is no liability created.
Now, the real answer for all of this is what constitutes knowledge, and what constitutes knowledge of a criminal act. Does it happen when there is a charge laid or a conviction rendered?
Considering that (a) games generally have no "free", OTA, or other type of distribution, and (b) they are freaking expensive to buy, and (c) they often suck, I would say that yes, some people are doing "try before you buy".
What that points to more is a failing of a business model, rather than any great advantage of piracy. A better free trial system or similar might work out even better.
You could also take this the other way, which is that the judge has pretty much limited their defense as well. It would appear that he is saying that only the issue of generecide will matter.
Generecide is, IMHO, a sort of affirmative defense at this point. Yes, we know there is a trademark, but we think it' now a common word or phrase. If the court does not agree, then the trademark violation is a fait accomplis.
What's the issue? By the agreement, CL was only suppose to charge a nominal fee - it was all about getting a valid credit card and therefore a customer name attached to the records. Instead, CL charged a higher fee, and then DOUBLED the fee and rapidly started heavily profiting off of the adult ads - and appear to be doing everything they can to encourage non-traditional payments to allow for anonymous ads.
Unless of course you think that the millions they are making are actually being given to charity...
"The AGs and Craigslist agreed in 2008 that adult ads shouldn't be free, and that posters of the ads should have to pay by valid credit card. The theory behind the move was that criminals wouldn't want to post an ad for fear of exposing themselves to prosecution. Moreover, Craigslist pledged that all revenues from the ads would go to charity. But then last May, Craigslist doubled the fee for such ads from $5 to $10 and, at the same time, said it would manually review the ads in an effort to better police the site. (Perhaps the increased revenue funded that extra effort? The press release doesn't say.) " (source AOL finance)
See, the point of using a valid credit card was to make customers accountable for their ads. The idea wasn't to limit the number of ads by cost, but limit the number of ads by creating responsibility... you know, getting rid of the anonymous factor.
What did CL do? They started making income and cranked the price. The appear to have used the most lax credit card processing possible that didn't require any customer validation, and when they got caught at it, they branched out into gift cards and the like.
The goal was for CL to "know their customer" (similar to banking rules), but instead they just used it as a way to make a pile of cash.
History is a fact, you can't re-write it that easily!
This whole deal isn't to add a DRM to HTML, rather it's to add a set of rules and create a sort of sandbox that limits DRM to working in a very particular way.
It does not make DRM mandatory.
It does not make your browser run DRM to view a web page.
It does not force you to use DRM on every site you visit.
In fact, it doesn't even add DRM to your browser. It only sets the rules for how EME works and will be supported in W3C compliant browsers.
Nobody is forcing browser makers to use it, no more than microsoft could force us all to use frontpage extensions!
No browser absolutely has to have it to function.
No website will be required to add DRM to operate.
EFF leaving is fundamentally "I lost the game so I am going away in a snit". They get all upset at the voting - which is the same as it's always been. It's always been secret to avoid having participating individuals and groups harassed before and after voting.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I think the section 230 protections are overbroad, and have long since passed the level of being a protection against something, and instead has become a shield for some pretty bad business models.
I also think that the "for the children" part is only a guise to deal with the bigger overall issue of prostitution and proximatism (aka pimping).
Okay, so where do we start? Well, let's consider the idea of availability. Prostitution is generally illegal in the US (with the exception of parts of Nevada, if I remember correctly). After literally centuries of legal bickering and playing games, we have ended up with "escort" and "full body massage" services, and a whole list of secret word games about tipping and being generous and all that sort of stuff, all in the name of dancing around the law.
The internet has clearly improved communication in this field. Online classified ad sites, escort portals and so on are common. They have made prostitution literally something that is easily available at your finger tips, 24 hours per day.
This is the sort of thing that use to be banished to the weekly inkies that nobody read for anything much else except the sex ads. Most major newspapers had long since gotten away from accepting any ads that even suggested the stuff, and many of them don't even have classified ads anymore anyway. Weekly inkies are a dying breed, in no small part because the sex ads have pretty much left the building.
Now, in the case of CL and others, the sex ads are the only ones they charge for. Why? Because there is plenty of cash money running around over there, and they are willing to pay handsomely for sites that turn a reasonably blind eye towards the content. They make their income in no small part from these ads. New York Time reported in 2010 that CL was taking in more than 30 million a year on sex ads (which CL denied... naturally!).
The real issue though isn't the money - it's the availability of information and the ease by which contact is made. Widespread advertising for prostitution, even when gently coded to avoid the law, facilitates the illegal trade, plain and simple.
For the hardcore sex addict, they will find it no matter what. They know locations and they know street corners and they will always find their fix. But the real issue is in making the advertising prevalent and common, you enable people who aren't adept to enter into that world. On the other side, you make it possible for a pimp to more easily market his wares and to find people willing to pay.
While there is certainly SOME advantage to leaving ads up and trying to play whac-a-mole with thousands of anonymous pimps, the reality is that changing the number of people willing or able to connect and pay for sex changes things dramatically. It's not an either / or situation. It's something that should be attacked from both ends.
The problem with attacking it by going after the pimps is that the legal system and case law makes it an incredibly hard job to do. While the police can often "sting" the girls who work openly and arrest them they rarely get the pimps. The girls are generally on a legal revolving door that has them out before the ink is dry on the report.
For the more severe child prostitution issue, those people aren't going to give it up easily and fall into a police trap just like that. These pimps and groups are well trained and well versed in what they need to do in order to avoid getting arrested, they are careful what they say and careful how they work. Burner phones, drop points, disposible credit cards (or gift cards) and never, ever directly accepting cash for sex - it's all done to avoid prosecution.
When law enforcement does arrest one, the court process is prolonged, expensive, and one undotted I is enough to kick them loose. Mike, you more than anyone should know from your recent experience that even a simple civil matter can run 6 months without even trying. A criminal case can run years, and hundreds of man hours for the police and the court system to prosecute someone who will be out before the trial is even really over.
Finally, let me say this. The changes to the law appear to be quite narrow in focus. This does not rip up section 230 and throw it in the garbage, it creates a very specific exception for certain types of activities. Section 230 is overly broad and has allowed all sorts of business models that would never make it in the real world. It's time to stop at least this very specific abuse. Section 230 does matter, but so do the lives of the victims here.
Seems more like the Government got the information they needed and the "lead time" to review it. Now 8 months later, it's not longer particularly relevant, and a judgement against them would be a problem next time out.
"Copyright law does not require a notice of public domain status."
Correct. But without the notice on Youtube, how would anyone really know?
"Thus we run into the problem with automated copyright detection tools: They lack the ability to discern context."
You continue to fish in the wrong river. A service provider doesn't have the type of rights that an individual has. The service generally doesn't have any other context except "copy content of you tube video and give to customer".
So the rest of your points are meaningless, because you are forgetting that the customer has no more control over the process than someone ordering a meal at McDonalds. You order, and you get your product - you don't make it, someone else does. That someone else has responsibilities.
"If I post a copy of Night of the Living Dead on my YouTube channel, I do not magically gain a copyright for it."
You are correct, and I didn't imply that you magically get copyright over posting what ISN'T yours (ie, a music video from a band, as an example, a common post on YouTube). However, in posting it, you would put "PUBLIC DOMAIN" on it (because you happen to know that) and everyone would be fine.
People posting and not properly attributing / marking the licensing is bad, many of the copies of that particular movie are marked with "standard youtube license" rather than properly marked as public domain. Your link has no license info. An automated tool would have no choice but to deny access. For what it's worth, most people aren't audio ripping two hour movies.
"They face no more of a risk than YouTube, since the service similarly cannot know who is ripping a video, for what purpose they are ripping the video, or whether that person has a legal right to rip the video."
A flea market pirate doesn't know either - which is generally why it's illegal. The ripping site isn't covered by DMCA as they are neither the poster nor the host, nor are the covered by section 230 (there is nothing "posted" on their site). They are just copying stuff without consideration of ownership.
"How can a ripping service know whether a specific use of the service is both illicit and not in the service of legally-protected speech?"
They can't. Nor is it their right to assert them. Again, just like a flea market guy banging out copies of movies and music CDs, the ripper willingly accepts to copy anything without question. That lack of question creates liability. The service doesn't get to assert free speech rights as their sole purpose is to rip music without a license. They are not personally using the material in a manner that would create legally protected speech for themselves. They have no free speech rights to assert here.
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" - WIkipedia.
The person posting is attacking me personally and trying to raise my ire. All it did was make me laugh, you would think Leigh would have better things to do (yes, he is very transparent!).
The goal of the troll was to take the discussion off my points and onto me personally. I guess by answering, I have fed the troll here, but honestly, you gets need to start flagging people who do this sort of thing. It really does take away from the whole discussion, don't you think?
On the post: The Soaring Cost Of Sports Programming Is Simply Not Sustainable
Re: Re:
NASCAR is facing that very problem. The TV deals are nice, and they are filling in the coffers for now. But the teams are having a hard time finding sponsors, the races are rapidly losing attendance, and the elephant in the room is that the TV ratings have declined significantly. While their TV deals do run for a few more years, it's very likely that when it comes time to renegotiate, they will find themselves backing into a corner, and forced to accept a very reduced deal.
The trickle down of course is that the teams can't afford as much staff and goodies, the driver are getting paid less, and experienced drivers are coming out of contract and not getting rehired. It's a potential death spiral.
Yet, on the other side, the public loves sports. The Superbowl is one of the most watched events every year. Where is the tipping point? How much sports can we live without before we need it bad enough again?
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re:
Prostitution is like drug dealing. With thousands of cases and plenty of caselaw, the workers have developed systems, processes, and keywords that are just this side of legal when taken individually (as the law generally does) but adds up quickly and obviously to something obviously bigger. Here's a screen shot (from Fastcompany) of a SXSW "special" promoted in backpage:
https://assets.fastcompany.com/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_auto:best,f_auto,fl_lossy/fc/30 57787-inline-i-3-sxsw-backpage-dates.png
Look at the picture.
What "skills" does she have that are unbelievable and relevant to being an escort and not a prostitute? Conversational skills? Can she uncork wine with just her mind power? One look at the ad and you know exactly what this girl is selling.
Now, on the head of a legal pin, you could say that without a successful prosecution of this girl long after the fact, Backpage would have no way to know that she is a hooker. That would require that they are perhaps the most ignorant people on the planet.
"Someone has to actually be shown to have broken the law in order to be investigated/prosecuted under the law. Crazy concept, I know."
Backpage's mistake (in this case) appears to be helping the girls / pimps write ads. That is a mistake. It also shows that they are clearly very much aware of what the ads are for. It is not hard to infer that the rates they charge for ads is profiting from prostitution.
"Except they aren't. They're proposing a 'solution' that will cause massive harm, and will merely make the 'blight' harder to find and address."
OMG, you almost got it man! Making the "blight" harder to find is the entire goal. Prostitutes / pimps market and advertise because they need more clients. They need to be exposed to the public in the hope of finding someone who needs the action. Places like Backpage make it look safe and simple, no different from ordering pizza. Dealing with criminals should be hard. It should be hard to find them, it should be hard to contact them, and you should never get the impression that it's safe or easy. If removing the ads from the online space cuts down their consumer base by (say) 20% even, that is a big deal. It's very likely to do a whole lot more than that.
Let's put it another way: Do you honestly think that, held to be accountable for the content of these ads, that Backpage would run them? The answer is no. They know it's prostitution. They know that they are an important cog in that business, and that the business sometimes includes underage girls, sometimes includes girls who are "owned" or controlled by others (stats say that 90% of prostitutes in the US have a pimp).
"They're proposing a 'solution' that will cause massive harm"
I disagree. While Mike has made some massive arm waving claims, the reality is quite simple. airBNB will not knowingly rent premises to prostitutes, porn film makers, or party people. If they are made aware, your account is banned and you can no longer rent through their system. They take action - even without prosecution. Moreover, AirBNB has no real horse in the game, considering we are talking section 230 here, which means the rental ads, and not the customers. Oh, yeah, Mike forgot to mention that! With or without section 230 as it is or changed, AirBNB has the same liability for it's renters actions - nothing changes because it's not about what is posted.
Use critical reasoning skills and go back over his posts. Go look at who actually would really be affected. Classified ads and Cloudflare at the two most likely to have issues. Honestly, they just need to stop dealing with criminals. ;)
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
The issue that the legislative branch is trying to deal with is that these websites / companies / operators are hiding behind section 230, using it not to protect free speech but instead to protect their business models and to allow them to turn a blind eye. It is a situation that is intolerable enough that they are actually likely to pass bi-partisan legislation to deal with it.
Waiting a decade or more for a company like backpage to make a mistake is not fixing the underlying problem. Using their (potential) error as a reason to turn a blind eye on all of the other similar situations out there is appallingly bad. There is a problem, and we should be happy that the legislative branch working to deal with what is truly a blight on society.
On the post: The Soaring Cost Of Sports Programming Is Simply Not Sustainable
As an example, NASCAR signed their latest TV agreements in late 2012 and early 2013 for 8 and 10 years respectively. Those deals were signed when NASCAR still had reasonably high ratings - which have fallen significantly in the last 5 years. Attendance is down, viewership is down, and the "halo" effect of having NASCAR on your channel isn't that significant at this point. The sport itself is undergoing major transitions as a lack of sponsorship is driving some teams out of the sport and lowering the salaries and such all around. The latest series sponsor, Monster, is in there at a price that is reportedly about 25% of what the previous sponsor was paying, and on a much more short term basis.
Now, this gap between direct advertising and the cost of the boardcast rights is made up in no small part by subscription fees, but it is also made up by going "wall to wall" on certain sports. The latest NBA deal comes with a significant increase in NBA related programming, including preview and review shows, NBA themed interview shows, and the like. Those are relatively cheap to produce (done in house) and the ad revenue there goes to pay towards the broadcast rights. So the report you point to, while reasonable accurate in a direct way, does not consider all the ways that the content is marketed and monetized.
Since most of the sports have TV contracts that run well past 2020, it's doubtful that much will change, except perhaps what people pay for. Instead of paying for ESPN on cable, people may end up paying for the streaming version.
The money will be made and the bills will get paid, at least for another 5 to 10 years.
On the post: Released Snowden Doc Shows NSA Thwarting Electronic Dead Drops By Using Email Metadata
It's interesting that the feds were onto it and looking for ways to handle it.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Re: Re:
Put it another way: If you come to me and say "let's rob a bank, I have a gun, and this is the bank" and I decline, I still have knowledge of your intent to rob a bank. I don't have to wait for your to rob the bank to have knowledge of your intent.
Yes, it can be tricky, but the image Mike is trying to paint (that airBNB would suddenly be liable for a single escort property rental) is ludicrous and laughable overhype.
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Re:
Even if drugs are sold, the legal system would generally limit legal responsibility to the single person who sold the drugs until a proper conspiracy is a proven, which would take months. In the mean time, plenty of drugs are sold.
The good senator would like companies which provide adverting and promotion space to be at least slightly responsible for the people they choose to do business with and the types of businesses they promote. He didn't say anything about sign painters - he basically talks about the internet equivalent of billboard ads or TV / Radio ads.
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re: Re:
The pirates aren't doing this to do you a favor - they are doing it to make ad revenue (and apparently, to mine bitcoins... another story). When they mess up (and they sometimes do) it's your reputation that is on the line, not theirs. Your game plays poorly because of a bad hacked version? Clearly your game is broken, so no sales for you!
On the post: Is There A Single Online Service Not Put At Risk By SESTA?
You keep going on like sites would have to be psychic and know who people are before they accept their FIRST post or FIRST ad or FIRST rental. That is not true. Simply, they would have no knowledge?
AirBNB renting to an escort? Well, first time they would not know, but when they did know (say feedback from the owner, example, or perhaps the escort got busted) they could ban that person from their service.
They difference? They would no longer be able to turn a blind eye to repeat abusers. Once they know what someone is up to (it has been reported to them), they would be obliged to take some action to stop it happening again.
The first time out, they are not "knowing". The second time around would be entirely different.
Now, when it comes to sites like CL or Backpage, accepting ads for escorts or other adult services would be knowingly helping the very first time out of the door. Knowing that escorts are prostitutes, accepting and running an ad would most certainly be an offense.
It's less clear (and more doubtful) that they would be on the hook is someone is posting "spammy" adult items in non-adult areas. Flagging, reporting, automated scanning and the like should handle the rest in due course.
"Cloudflare: Tons of websites use Cloudflare as a CDN to provide better uptime. What if one of them involves advertisements for sex trafficking. Is Cloudflare liable? After all, its CDN and anti-DDoS technology helped "facilitate" the service..."
Same thing - once Cloudflare is made aware (aka, they have knowledge) they would need to act. Until then the law clearly states that without knowledge, there is no liability created.
Now, the real answer for all of this is what constitutes knowledge, and what constitutes knowledge of a criminal act. Does it happen when there is a charge laid or a conviction rendered?
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
What that points to more is a failing of a business model, rather than any great advantage of piracy. A better free trial system or similar might work out even better.
On the post: Court Allows San Diego Comic-Con's Suit Against The Salt Lake City Comic Con To Move Forward
Generecide is, IMHO, a sort of affirmative defense at this point. Yes, we know there is a trademark, but we think it' now a common word or phrase. If the court does not agree, then the trademark violation is a fait accomplis.
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothing shocking here
Unless of course you think that the millions they are making are actually being given to charity...
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Re: Re: Nothing shocking here
"The AGs and Craigslist agreed in 2008 that adult ads shouldn't be free, and that posters of the ads should have to pay by valid credit card. The theory behind the move was that criminals wouldn't want to post an ad for fear of exposing themselves to prosecution. Moreover, Craigslist pledged that all revenues from the ads would go to charity. But then last May, Craigslist doubled the fee for such ads from $5 to $10 and, at the same time, said it would manually review the ads in an effort to better police the site. (Perhaps the increased revenue funded that extra effort? The press release doesn't say.) " (source AOL finance)
See, the point of using a valid credit card was to make customers accountable for their ads. The idea wasn't to limit the number of ads by cost, but limit the number of ads by creating responsibility... you know, getting rid of the anonymous factor.
What did CL do? They started making income and cranked the price. The appear to have used the most lax credit card processing possible that didn't require any customer validation, and when they got caught at it, they branched out into gift cards and the like.
The goal was for CL to "know their customer" (similar to banking rules), but instead they just used it as a way to make a pile of cash.
History is a fact, you can't re-write it that easily!
On the post: EFF Resigns From W3C After DRM In HTML Is Approved In Secret Vote
This whole deal isn't to add a DRM to HTML, rather it's to add a set of rules and create a sort of sandbox that limits DRM to working in a very particular way.
It does not make DRM mandatory.
It does not make your browser run DRM to view a web page.
It does not force you to use DRM on every site you visit.
In fact, it doesn't even add DRM to your browser. It only sets the rules for how EME works and will be supported in W3C compliant browsers.
Nobody is forcing browser makers to use it, no more than microsoft could force us all to use frontpage extensions!
No browser absolutely has to have it to function.
No website will be required to add DRM to operate.
EFF leaving is fundamentally "I lost the game so I am going away in a snit". They get all upset at the voting - which is the same as it's always been. It's always been secret to avoid having participating individuals and groups harassed before and after voting.
Not a good week for EFF.
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Nothing shocking here
I also think that the "for the children" part is only a guise to deal with the bigger overall issue of prostitution and proximatism (aka pimping).
Okay, so where do we start? Well, let's consider the idea of availability. Prostitution is generally illegal in the US (with the exception of parts of Nevada, if I remember correctly). After literally centuries of legal bickering and playing games, we have ended up with "escort" and "full body massage" services, and a whole list of secret word games about tipping and being generous and all that sort of stuff, all in the name of dancing around the law.
The internet has clearly improved communication in this field. Online classified ad sites, escort portals and so on are common. They have made prostitution literally something that is easily available at your finger tips, 24 hours per day.
This is the sort of thing that use to be banished to the weekly inkies that nobody read for anything much else except the sex ads. Most major newspapers had long since gotten away from accepting any ads that even suggested the stuff, and many of them don't even have classified ads anymore anyway. Weekly inkies are a dying breed, in no small part because the sex ads have pretty much left the building.
Now, in the case of CL and others, the sex ads are the only ones they charge for. Why? Because there is plenty of cash money running around over there, and they are willing to pay handsomely for sites that turn a reasonably blind eye towards the content. They make their income in no small part from these ads. New York Time reported in 2010 that CL was taking in more than 30 million a year on sex ads (which CL denied... naturally!).
The real issue though isn't the money - it's the availability of information and the ease by which contact is made. Widespread advertising for prostitution, even when gently coded to avoid the law, facilitates the illegal trade, plain and simple.
For the hardcore sex addict, they will find it no matter what. They know locations and they know street corners and they will always find their fix. But the real issue is in making the advertising prevalent and common, you enable people who aren't adept to enter into that world. On the other side, you make it possible for a pimp to more easily market his wares and to find people willing to pay.
How desperate is Backpage to remain in this business? They have gone to the length of subverting store brand gift cards so people can buy credits for sex ads... https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2017/07/24/new-trick-sex-trade-pimps-can-buy-ads-dall as-based-backpagecom-retailers-gift-cards
While there is certainly SOME advantage to leaving ads up and trying to play whac-a-mole with thousands of anonymous pimps, the reality is that changing the number of people willing or able to connect and pay for sex changes things dramatically. It's not an either / or situation. It's something that should be attacked from both ends.
The problem with attacking it by going after the pimps is that the legal system and case law makes it an incredibly hard job to do. While the police can often "sting" the girls who work openly and arrest them they rarely get the pimps. The girls are generally on a legal revolving door that has them out before the ink is dry on the report.
For the more severe child prostitution issue, those people aren't going to give it up easily and fall into a police trap just like that. These pimps and groups are well trained and well versed in what they need to do in order to avoid getting arrested, they are careful what they say and careful how they work. Burner phones, drop points, disposible credit cards (or gift cards) and never, ever directly accepting cash for sex - it's all done to avoid prosecution.
When law enforcement does arrest one, the court process is prolonged, expensive, and one undotted I is enough to kick them loose. Mike, you more than anyone should know from your recent experience that even a simple civil matter can run 6 months without even trying. A criminal case can run years, and hundreds of man hours for the police and the court system to prosecute someone who will be out before the trial is even really over.
Finally, let me say this. The changes to the law appear to be quite narrow in focus. This does not rip up section 230 and throw it in the garbage, it creates a very specific exception for certain types of activities. Section 230 is overly broad and has allowed all sorts of business models that would never make it in the real world. It's time to stop at least this very specific abuse. Section 230 does matter, but so do the lives of the victims here.
On the post: Government Drops Facebook Search Warrant Gag Order At Eleventh Hour
On the post: Music Industry Is Painting A Target On YouTube Ripping Sites, Despite Their Many Non-Infringing Uses
Re: Oi.
Correct. But without the notice on Youtube, how would anyone really know?
"Thus we run into the problem with automated copyright detection tools: They lack the ability to discern context."
You continue to fish in the wrong river. A service provider doesn't have the type of rights that an individual has. The service generally doesn't have any other context except "copy content of you tube video and give to customer".
So the rest of your points are meaningless, because you are forgetting that the customer has no more control over the process than someone ordering a meal at McDonalds. You order, and you get your product - you don't make it, someone else does. That someone else has responsibilities.
On the post: Music Industry Is Painting A Target On YouTube Ripping Sites, Despite Their Many Non-Infringing Uses
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct, and I didn't imply that you magically get copyright over posting what ISN'T yours (ie, a music video from a band, as an example, a common post on YouTube). However, in posting it, you would put "PUBLIC DOMAIN" on it (because you happen to know that) and everyone would be fine.
People posting and not properly attributing / marking the licensing is bad, many of the copies of that particular movie are marked with "standard youtube license" rather than properly marked as public domain. Your link has no license info. An automated tool would have no choice but to deny access. For what it's worth, most people aren't audio ripping two hour movies.
"They face no more of a risk than YouTube, since the service similarly cannot know who is ripping a video, for what purpose they are ripping the video, or whether that person has a legal right to rip the video."
A flea market pirate doesn't know either - which is generally why it's illegal. The ripping site isn't covered by DMCA as they are neither the poster nor the host, nor are the covered by section 230 (there is nothing "posted" on their site). They are just copying stuff without consideration of ownership.
"How can a ripping service know whether a specific use of the service is both illicit and not in the service of legally-protected speech?"
They can't. Nor is it their right to assert them. Again, just like a flea market guy banging out copies of movies and music CDs, the ripper willingly accepts to copy anything without question. That lack of question creates liability. The service doesn't get to assert free speech rights as their sole purpose is to rip music without a license. They are not personally using the material in a manner that would create legally protected speech for themselves. They have no free speech rights to assert here.
Next >>