Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 6:24am
Re: Re: There's no such thing as "privacy" OR "security"
If you're doing something seriously shady then relying on a single tool to provide security isnt smart.
Bingo. In military and security terms, its referred to as 'defense in depth'. Depending on how secure you want a system, you rely on multiple layers of security. Worried that a VPN is keeping logs on you? No problem, route your traffic through multiple VPNs - and change them regularly. Find an open proxy out on the internet and route through that, too. It's just like using shell companies for legal games, but it's tech, so can be automated and done much cheaper and faster. It's not that hard to do, just requires some knowledge and planning.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 6:06am
"Grover Norquist"
Just like Intuit, he's arguing against simpler taxes for his on self-interest. The only reason anyone pays attention to him is because people hate taxes. If taxes became much simpler and easier, people would have less of a reason to hate them, and less reason to listen to Norquist.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Apr 2013 @ 1:29pm
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like, with this ruling, now doing anything with protected media other than consuming it from the original device it was downloaded on using approved software is now illegal
That's been illegal since 1998 and the DMCA. What this ruling makes illegal is transferring an *un*protected file.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Apr 2013 @ 7:14am
Re:
Why would reformatting a video be a problem? As others have pointed out, its an entirely automated process that can apply equally to both legitimate and infringing content, without anyone specifically choosing which videos to convert.
But beyond that, format shifting is legal (the only time it isn't is if you ahve to break DRM, and that isn't in play here). If the video is not infringing, Youtube is free to convert it however they want. And Viacom has been unable to show even the tiniest bit of evidence of Youtube having specific knowledge of infringement on the videos involved in this case. If they could show evidence, then they would have.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Mar 2013 @ 5:38am
Re:
Yep, Giz has this one right. It's really a shame that Cloudflare is trying to hype this up, they've got a good track record, provide a useful service, and this really hurts their credibility.
CF is not all wrong. The exchange IPs accepting external traffic issue they mention could have ramifications, but the guys running exchanges know their stuff and are rapidly fixing it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 10:54am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And an expected attempt to deflect the conversation away from the real topic. Mike won't take your bait when you've clearly shown your only reason for commenting is your bizarre obessesion for throwing insults and poor attempts to paint him into a corner with out of context answers.
Did the attempt work? :game show buzzer: No, it did not. But thanks for playing.
Again, I'll ask, do you want to have a discussion regarding how damaging the current CFAA is, and this attempt to make it worse?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly classier than your usual M.O.
Care to address the actual topic at hand, or are you satisfied with your boringly repetitive ad-homs and evasion of a real discussion on how harmful the current CFAA is and this attempt to make it worse?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 3:00pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A page from your book: "TOSs are law? lol"
No TOS describes my rights. A TOS may attempt to limit my rights, but the word there is attempt. About the only thing they can do is refuse me service or stop selling me stuff if I break their TOS.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 1:41pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many of the soft middle will migrate to Bitcoin? How many will pay for a VPN?
You don't get it. P2P existed before Napster. Napster made it easy - but when Napster was killed, most of those using it didn't start throwing money your way, they moved to other services that may have been harder to use at first, but quickly adapted to get easy.
Six strikes is already turning VPNs mainstream. A year ago, you heard no one but techies and remote business users talking about them. They're easier to use now. There are more available. And cheaper than they used to be - both from competition and lower bandwidth/server costs.
As to your ad-homs?
Soulless? I'm an atheist, never claimed to have a soul.
Thieving? I infringe copyright, sure. Made no secret of that. Give me a reason to buy. Haven't infringed on any copyrighted music in months, though. Offer me a convenient service, with the features I want, at a reasonable price and I'll pay.
Freeloader? I'm listening to music right now on Spotify. I pay $10 a month for it. $120 a year. That's more than I spent when I was in my 20s on music, because services weren't available that didn't suck. Give me a Spotify-like service for video and I'll throw money at you. Give me a service I can download high quality movies and episodic shows from that are not encumbered with DRM, available when they release in theaters and TV, and available at reasonable prices and I'll throw money at you. When you want my money, give me a reason to give it to you that doesn't involve threats. Until then, I'll give it to people offering useful services that don't suck.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:30pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who will put up the kind of money and possesses the expertise to win the battle? EFF? Public Knowledge? Techdirt? Demand Progress?
How'd you miss the CATO Institute? Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), we just had Jim Harper on TD yesterday. Oh, but he doesn't have any influence in DC, does he?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 12:12pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You still think this is about Google. Hilarious.
Wake up. We killed SOPA. We killed ACTA. Until those, you had never lost a fight. Sure, we won't win everything, but we'll kill off enough bad legislation to make it risky for your bought congresscritters to keep proposing bills. They care about votes more than money, and its our votes they want. We'll shame enough large companies (we'll even fight Google when we need to) to make it risky going along with your voluntary agreements. Those companies want money, and its our money that we can choose who to give it to.
The problem with your well-monied idea of corporatocracy and cronyism is that we're not building a competing well-monied opponent to slug it out with you in the halls of Washington. We're attacking the source of your money. We're routing around your long built infrastructure. We're not fighting "fair" in a way you understand. And you fundamentally don't understand the distributed, headless opponent that we are.
But thanks for the look into how you see government. I'm sure the founding fathers would respect you.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 8:15am
Re: Re:
These businesses still operate because the only thing that could stop them from scamming people online does not currently exist in any other applicable business laws.
And adding racketeering to the CFAA will fix that?
Here's a news flash for you. The virus scams are already committing fraud. The FTC goes after them already for that, and occasionally can track them down well enough to prosecute. Many still exist not because we lack laws to go after them for violating, but because there are so many and can be so difficult to track down.
Both the op-ed and other piece are full of psychological projection.
Anyone who looks critically at the statements can easily see through them. They're basically saying "We can't admit that we've distorted the truth for deacdes, so any pushback against our version of the truth is distorting." And "We can't admit that all of our arguments are emotional or disputes about business model and technological disruption, so any attempt to argue against our irrationalities doesn't belong in a public debate."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 7:42am
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, the means are working remarkably well, so that's not really an issue.
You can't just hand wave this away. Copyright is being used to suppress speech. Copyright is being used to hinder the creation of new work. Copyright is being used to stop new services and technologies, or to tax or slow them to uselessness.
Yes, new works are being created - in spite of copyright, not because of it. Every day we see more examples of it hindering. Every day we see more examples of overreach or copyfraud. They are no longer outliers.
This is a really simple concept. If copyright is hindering more than it is helping, it is not "promoting the progress" and needs to be fixed or scrapped entirely.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:57am
Re:
The Constitution clearly reflects the Framers' belief that granting authors exclusive rights is the best way to promote the progress of science. That's why the Framers explicitly provided the means.
Times change, and the framers of the Constitution knew that, which is why they provided ways for it to be ammended. There's quite a few things that mostly everyone now agrees were included in the Constitution that were incorrect or missing entirely.
You're quite focused on the means the framers supplied. But the means is useless if it is not achieving the purpose for which it was stated. If the means (temporary monopoly privilege) is hindering the purpose (creation of works) then I'm quite confident that if the framers were still around, they'd be perfectly OK with scrapping those monopolies.
Actually, there's another argument here. Some of the framers suspected that granting monopoly privileges over works of the mind was problematic. Because of that, they linked the power they were granting to Congress to the purpose it was being granted for - and by limiting Congress, it was their intention to prevent exactly what we see with today's overreaching copyright laws.
On the post: Can Commercial VPNs Really Protect Your Privacy?
Re: Re: There's no such thing as "privacy" OR "security"
Bingo. In military and security terms, its referred to as 'defense in depth'. Depending on how secure you want a system, you rely on multiple layers of security. Worried that a VPN is keeping logs on you? No problem, route your traffic through multiple VPNs - and change them regularly. Find an open proxy out on the internet and route through that, too. It's just like using shell companies for legal games, but it's tech, so can be automated and done much cheaper and faster. It's not that hard to do, just requires some knowledge and planning.
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Just like Intuit, he's arguing against simpler taxes for his on self-interest. The only reason anyone pays attention to him is because people hate taxes. If taxes became much simpler and easier, people would have less of a reason to hate them, and less reason to listen to Norquist.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re:
That's been illegal since 1998 and the DMCA. What this ruling makes illegal is transferring an *un*protected file.
On the post: US Government's Failure To Protect Public Privacy Is Driving Business Overseas
Re: Re: Re:
Care to actually discuss the topic in the article?
On the post: Viacom Filing Attempts To Rewrite DMCA, Shift Burden Of Proof, Wipe Out Safe Harbors And Require Mandatory Filtering
Re:
But beyond that, format shifting is legal (the only time it isn't is if you ahve to break DRM, and that isn't in play here). If the video is not infringing, Youtube is free to convert it however they want. And Viacom has been unable to show even the tiniest bit of evidence of Youtube having specific knowledge of infringement on the videos involved in this case. If they could show evidence, then they would have.
On the post: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics
Re: HTP Company FAILED REPUTATION
On the post: If Your Kid's Playing M-Rated Games, You Can't Blame The Retailer
Re:
Content is advertising and advertising is content.
On the post: Internet Under Attack: World's Largest DDoS Attack Almost Broke The Internet
Re:
CF is not all wrong. The exchange IPs accepting external traffic issue they mention could have ramifications, but the guys running exchanges know their stuff and are rapidly fixing it.
On the post: Experts Scratching Their Heads At House Judiciary's Awful CFAA Reform Proposal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did the attempt work? :game show buzzer: No, it did not. But thanks for playing.
Again, I'll ask, do you want to have a discussion regarding how damaging the current CFAA is, and this attempt to make it worse?
On the post: Experts Scratching Their Heads At House Judiciary's Awful CFAA Reform Proposal
Re: Re: Re:
Care to address the actual topic at hand, or are you satisfied with your boringly repetitive ad-homs and evasion of a real discussion on how harmful the current CFAA is and this attempt to make it worse?
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No TOS describes my rights. A TOS may attempt to limit my rights, but the word there is attempt. About the only thing they can do is refuse me service or stop selling me stuff if I break their TOS.
The rights I have are natural rights.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't get it. P2P existed before Napster. Napster made it easy - but when Napster was killed, most of those using it didn't start throwing money your way, they moved to other services that may have been harder to use at first, but quickly adapted to get easy.
Six strikes is already turning VPNs mainstream. A year ago, you heard no one but techies and remote business users talking about them. They're easier to use now. There are more available. And cheaper than they used to be - both from competition and lower bandwidth/server costs.
As to your ad-homs?
Soulless? I'm an atheist, never claimed to have a soul.
Thieving? I infringe copyright, sure. Made no secret of that. Give me a reason to buy. Haven't infringed on any copyrighted music in months, though. Offer me a convenient service, with the features I want, at a reasonable price and I'll pay.
Freeloader? I'm listening to music right now on Spotify. I pay $10 a month for it. $120 a year. That's more than I spent when I was in my 20s on music, because services weren't available that didn't suck. Give me a Spotify-like service for video and I'll throw money at you. Give me a service I can download high quality movies and episodic shows from that are not encumbered with DRM, available when they release in theaters and TV, and available at reasonable prices and I'll throw money at you. When you want my money, give me a reason to give it to you that doesn't involve threats. Until then, I'll give it to people offering useful services that don't suck.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm free to use other search engines not buying into your Koolaid.
payment processor and ad network
There's other competition there, too. And Bitcoin is a thing now, if you haven't heard.
six strikes
Perfectly happy with my list of dozens of VPNs that don't keep logs, thanks.
Your move.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How'd you miss the CATO Institute? Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), we just had Jim Harper on TD yesterday. Oh, but he doesn't have any influence in DC, does he?
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re:
Is that a veiled threat that you'll sic the FBI on us once we piss you off enough, like what happened to Aaron?
How's the bullying thing working out for you so far?
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wake up. We killed SOPA. We killed ACTA. Until those, you had never lost a fight. Sure, we won't win everything, but we'll kill off enough bad legislation to make it risky for your bought congresscritters to keep proposing bills. They care about votes more than money, and its our votes they want. We'll shame enough large companies (we'll even fight Google when we need to) to make it risky going along with your voluntary agreements. Those companies want money, and its our money that we can choose who to give it to.
The problem with your well-monied idea of corporatocracy and cronyism is that we're not building a competing well-monied opponent to slug it out with you in the halls of Washington. We're attacking the source of your money. We're routing around your long built infrastructure. We're not fighting "fair" in a way you understand. And you fundamentally don't understand the distributed, headless opponent that we are.
But thanks for the look into how you see government. I'm sure the founding fathers would respect you.
On the post: Rather Than Fix The CFAA, House Judiciary Committee Planning To Make It Worse... Way Worse
Re: Re:
And adding racketeering to the CFAA will fix that?
Here's a news flash for you. The virus scams are already committing fraud. The FTC goes after them already for that, and occasionally can track them down well enough to prosecute. Many still exist not because we lack laws to go after them for violating, but because there are so many and can be so difficult to track down.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Projection
Both the op-ed and other piece are full of psychological projection.
Anyone who looks critically at the statements can easily see through them. They're basically saying "We can't admit that we've distorted the truth for deacdes, so any pushback against our version of the truth is distorting." And "We can't admit that all of our arguments are emotional or disputes about business model and technological disruption, so any attempt to argue against our irrationalities doesn't belong in a public debate."
On the post: Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!
Re: Re: Re:
You can't just hand wave this away. Copyright is being used to suppress speech. Copyright is being used to hinder the creation of new work. Copyright is being used to stop new services and technologies, or to tax or slow them to uselessness.
Yes, new works are being created - in spite of copyright, not because of it. Every day we see more examples of it hindering. Every day we see more examples of overreach or copyfraud. They are no longer outliers.
This is a really simple concept. If copyright is hindering more than it is helping, it is not "promoting the progress" and needs to be fixed or scrapped entirely.
On the post: Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!
Re:
Times change, and the framers of the Constitution knew that, which is why they provided ways for it to be ammended. There's quite a few things that mostly everyone now agrees were included in the Constitution that were incorrect or missing entirely.
You're quite focused on the means the framers supplied. But the means is useless if it is not achieving the purpose for which it was stated. If the means (temporary monopoly privilege) is hindering the purpose (creation of works) then I'm quite confident that if the framers were still around, they'd be perfectly OK with scrapping those monopolies.
Actually, there's another argument here. Some of the framers suspected that granting monopoly privileges over works of the mind was problematic. Because of that, they linked the power they were granting to Congress to the purpose it was being granted for - and by limiting Congress, it was their intention to prevent exactly what we see with today's overreaching copyright laws.
Next >>