As I see it, I have two options as I'll definitely not subscribe to several such services at the same time. 1. I subscribe to one service at a time, with a rotation as I enjoy a month of one service then switch to another. Doing this with Cable would be more difficult and costly. Not a great solution, but legal and much cheaper than before. Still have to fish around for specific content. And spend time juggling subscriptions. 2. Forget them and just torrent whatever I want. No subscription, no exclusives. If those guys don't want my money, why should I be the one going through hoops and loops to give it to them? They're making things a nightmare for their customers, then complain that they find "alternatives".
That's easy to answer: Arguing facts is only as strong as what you can prove. Arguing faith is as strong as you say it is.
When you lack proof, just pretend repeatedly that you really believe it's the truth. Your argument will become stronger the more it is repeated. (At least to some people.)
I could have understood the concept of "good faith" as an immunity to being sued for someone else's mistake. Even when the good faith here is far from obvious. But that shouldn't save the whole prosecution because evidence is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain of events that brings it to a trial. It might not have been the FBI's fault (then again, I'm not convinced, but let's give then that much for now), but the chain does contain a completely invalid warrant, so the evidence is invalid. Same as if a lab assistant had switched samples to be tested: not the cops' fault but still broken evidence.
Trust in the judicial system comes from the rules. If LEO and judges consider that rules don't apply to themselves, why are they surprised that people don't trust them anymore?
Secret laws (or failing that, secret interpretations or secret definition of common words), covering secret trials and/or secret evidence. I'm actually amazed they bother with secret investigations to begin with.
They can go to a secret judge, pleading secret charges with secret evidence, and they'd probably manage a conviction 9 times out of 10. Heck, most of the times they might even be able to do this with a normal judge.
Others have already pointed out the choice factor. You actively choose to spread your words on Twitter. You cannot choose to hide your license plate when driving your car, hence forcibly "communicating" your movements to anyone looking at your car.
I would add that there is also a difference in the level of publicity. When you type a tweet, you know it will be available to everyone, and indexed for easy search. When driving your car, another individual would have to follow you around to know where you've gone. ALPR is taking this to a level that is 1. not originally expected and 2. on a level that a single individual cannot match.
As I see it, those two points make ALPRs a completely different issue.
"Defendants contend that non-protectable elements include the following: (1) costumes; (etc...) The Court finds that Defendants’ argument mischaracterizes the scope of Plaintiffs’ copyright claims." Each of those are "words" used to tell a story. Mere ideas that are not copyrightable. And those are used by the fans to tell a different story, a different expression that the studio didn't have copyright on.
Let's remind them that copyright covers a specific expression of an idea, not all the different variations one might imagine next.
I might only concede that the specific unauthorized use of the Enterprise and a few characters might constitute a valid claim... that the studio should have graciously allowed in the first place. This would have been good for their image.
Two points: 1. It's a minor point, but let's be fair. The FBI didn't want Apple to do unpaid sabotage against their own security. They would have been paid. "A reasonable amount", of course. We all know what that means. 2. I think it all started right at the end of WWII, when we decided that "us against them" was a good way to promote democracy. Pointing to someone "evil" and saying "you do what I tell you to, or they will come for you" is not good leadership. The other one can be Nazis, communists, terrorists... It doesn't matter. When you lead the "home of the brave" by insisting that we should always be afraid of the rest of the world, something is broken.
Wrong. What you're describing is true (more or less) for trademarks, not patents. Patents do need to be "original", at least in the law. You can't take someone's invention and patent it... at least not when one can prove prior art. Unlike trademark, patents are not a race to the registration office.
In his mind, he is the law. From there, he's never wrong, and anyone defying him always is. Clear case of someone who should never be granted any amount of authority. Even if this is just grandstanding for the next election, it raises the expectations of some voters.
Not quite right. It's about money, that's for sure, but the reason is a little more complex.
Publishers want to strike deals with local distributors. Some distributors want exclusivity in their respective countries, and most wouldn't want to pay a worldwide license anyway. (Remember that the legacy industries mostly consider TV broadcasters as distributors.)
It was a system that - more or less - worked in the TV era. Internet changes the rules, being a worldwide network, so rights owners and local distributors alike try to resist the change.
For local broadcasters, internet makes them irrelevant. For rights owners, striking multiple local deals is way more profitable than a single global license anyway. So neither is happy if regional licenses are not enforced.
Sorry, it took some time fit me to connect the dpots and understand where you're... well either wrong or deliberately misleading.
"The trick is that they are not talking about the same things, they are intentionally talking about something that just isn't in the cards on this case: Rolling out a less secure OS to every iphone in the world."
They are talking about the same thing. You pretend that the demand from the FBI is only on one phone, not all of them. That's - only technically - true, but you try to explain that means only this one phone will be compromised. Every other phone will be safe.
That's wrong because enabling the FBI this very power that has been explicitly denied earlier by the Congress opens several security holes as has been described in several articles before. (That you have commented on, so don't pretend they don't exist.)
You're saying is just about this one phone that the FBI has in custody, brushing aside all the risks: leak of the software that could be used on stolen phones, risk of other governments making the exact same request, risk of the US authorities requesting broader changes, risk of people denying updates, etc.
"Weakening security on all phones" is not about "deploying a voluntary security breach on all phones". It's setting a while unsecured and untrusted environment in a domain that needs trust and innovation.
I'm still not sure if you're mistaken or outright lying, but I'm definitely annoyed that you still battle on those irrelevant technicalities.
Yes, war is unfair. That's why there are a minimum of rules, including declaring actual war on a country before killing people there. It doesn't matter how justified you feel. In this case, US tasks about "war on terrorism", which is not really war in the legal sense, then goes around killing people, terrorists and civilians alike. That is - or would be if anyone bothered suing the US government - a war crime quite similar to what terrorist do. When your actions are so very similar to your enemies', you can't argue morals, human rights or whatever. You're only allowed to pretend at fighting for survival... In which case morals don't apply, but the international rules still do. At least when you're not one of the most dangerous countries on earth.
Let's consider this possibility for a few minutes... 1- you say yourself that the probability is insanely small... so how does that make a probable cause? Given the chances, that's more of an "improbable cause". Good reason to reject it as a reason to break communication security. 2- if they had such a masterfully executed plan, why throw the whole concept of keeping it hidden and risk everything by starting a suicide attack like this? That's the kind of stupid plan that only exist in James Bond movies, just so the hero has something to start investigating.
When will the trademark office understand to survey reject trademark application on single common words? People could still use them, just without trademark.
Yes, one can hope. France had a "debate" after January last year. It was about pushing for new and quite extreme laws extending the government ability to spy on basically everyone. A handful of politicians were all for it; all security, legal and even counterterrorism experts were against it. Can you guess what the result was?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Questionable Copyright Claim Forces Indie Musician To Destroy All Physical Copies Of New Album
Big mistake. The first rule of copyright law is that you never have it "all worked out".
On the post: As Netflix Locks Down Exclusive Disney Rights, The New Walled Gardens Emerge
1. I subscribe to one service at a time, with a rotation as I enjoy a month of one service then switch to another. Doing this with Cable would be more difficult and costly. Not a great solution, but legal and much cheaper than before. Still have to fish around for specific content. And spend time juggling subscriptions.
2. Forget them and just torrent whatever I want. No subscription, no exclusives. If those guys don't want my money, why should I be the one going through hoops and loops to give it to them?
They're making things a nightmare for their customers, then complain that they find "alternatives".
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
Re: Separation of Church and State
Arguing facts is only as strong as what you can prove.
Arguing faith is as strong as you say it is.
When you lack proof, just pretend repeatedly that you really believe it's the truth. Your argument will become stronger the more it is repeated. (At least to some people.)
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
once again, good faith saves the day
But that shouldn't save the whole prosecution because evidence is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain of events that brings it to a trial.
It might not have been the FBI's fault (then again, I'm not convinced, but let's give then that much for now), but the chain does contain a completely invalid warrant, so the evidence is invalid.
Same as if a lab assistant had switched samples to be tested: not the cops' fault but still broken evidence.
Trust in the judicial system comes from the rules. If LEO and judges consider that rules don't apply to themselves, why are they surprised that people don't trust them anymore?
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
I'm actually amazed they bother with secret investigations to begin with.
They can go to a secret judge, pleading secret charges with secret evidence, and they'd probably manage a conviction 9 times out of 10.
Heck, most of the times they might even be able to do this with a normal judge.
On the post: Is It Really That Big A Deal That Twitter Blocked US Intelligence Agencies From Mining Public Tweets?
Re:
Others have already pointed out the choice factor. You actively choose to spread your words on Twitter. You cannot choose to hide your license plate when driving your car, hence forcibly "communicating" your movements to anyone looking at your car.
I would add that there is also a difference in the level of publicity. When you type a tweet, you know it will be available to everyone, and indexed for easy search. When driving your car, another individual would have to follow you around to know where you've gone. ALPR is taking this to a level that is 1. not originally expected and 2. on a level that a single individual cannot match.
As I see it, those two points make ALPRs a completely different issue.
On the post: Judge Says Copyright Case Against Star Trek Fan Film Can 'Live Long' And Possibly 'Prosper'
Each of those are "words" used to tell a story.
Mere ideas that are not copyrightable.
And those are used by the fans to tell a different story, a different expression that the studio didn't have copyright on.
Let's remind them that copyright covers a specific expression of an idea, not all the different variations one might imagine next.
I might only concede that the specific unauthorized use of the Enterprise and a few characters might constitute a valid claim... that the studio should have graciously allowed in the first place. This would have been good for their image.
On the post: Judge Says Copyright Case Against Star Trek Fan Film Can 'Live Long' And Possibly 'Prosper'
Re:
This calls for the Chewbacca defense.
On the post: FBI Says It Will Ignore Court Order If Told To Reveal Its Tor Browser Exploit, Because It Feels It's Above The Law...
Re: Ignoring Court Orders
1. It's a minor point, but let's be fair. The FBI didn't want Apple to do unpaid sabotage against their own security. They would have been paid. "A reasonable amount", of course. We all know what that means.
2. I think it all started right at the end of WWII, when we decided that "us against them" was a good way to promote democracy. Pointing to someone "evil" and saying "you do what I tell you to, or they will come for you" is not good leadership. The other one can be Nazis, communists, terrorists... It doesn't matter. When you lead the "home of the brave" by insisting that we should always be afraid of the rest of the world, something is broken.
On the post: Newegg Inserts Itself Into The Global Archery, LARPing.org Patent Tiff
Re: Re:
What you're describing is true (more or less) for trademarks, not patents.
Patents do need to be "original", at least in the law. You can't take someone's invention and patent it... at least not when one can prove prior art. Unlike trademark, patents are not a race to the registration office.
On the post: Publicity Seeking Florida Sheriff Promises To Put Tim Cook In Jail For Refusing To Decrypt iPhones
Re: If it walks like a duck...
Clear case of someone who should never be granted any amount of authority. Even if this is just grandstanding for the next election, it raises the expectations of some voters.
On the post: Netflix's Assault On VPNs Is Stupid, Annoying And Erodes User Security
Re: Maybe Netflix should. ..
On the post: Netflix's Assault On VPNs Is Stupid, Annoying And Erodes User Security
Re: Re:
It's about money, that's for sure, but the reason is a little more complex.
Publishers want to strike deals with local distributors. Some distributors want exclusivity in their respective countries, and most wouldn't want to pay a worldwide license anyway. (Remember that the legacy industries mostly consider TV broadcasters as distributors.)
It was a system that - more or less - worked in the TV era. Internet changes the rules, being a worldwide network, so rights owners and local distributors alike try to resist the change.
For local broadcasters, internet makes them irrelevant.
For rights owners, striking multiple local deals is way more profitable than a single global license anyway.
So neither is happy if regional licenses are not enforced.
On the post: Apple Engineering VP: The FBI Wants Us To Make Everyone Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The trick is that they are not talking about the same things, they are intentionally talking about something that just isn't in the cards on this case: Rolling out a less secure OS to every iphone in the world."
They are talking about the same thing.
You pretend that the demand from the FBI is only on one phone, not all of them. That's - only technically - true, but you try to explain that means only this one phone will be compromised. Every other phone will be safe.
That's wrong because enabling the FBI this very power that has been explicitly denied earlier by the Congress opens several security holes as has been described in several articles before. (That you have commented on, so don't pretend they don't exist.)
You're saying is just about this one phone that the FBI has in custody, brushing aside all the risks: leak of the software that could be used on stolen phones, risk of other governments making the exact same request, risk of the US authorities requesting broader changes, risk of people denying updates, etc.
"Weakening security on all phones" is not about "deploying a voluntary security breach on all phones". It's setting a while unsecured and untrusted environment in a domain that needs trust and innovation.
I'm still not sure if you're mistaken or outright lying, but
I'm definitely annoyed that you still battle on those irrelevant technicalities.
On the post: Abuse Of Power: Laws Should Be Designed As If The People We Distrust The Most Are In Power
Re: Re: Re: Drones
In this case, US tasks about "war on terrorism", which is not really war in the legal sense, then goes around killing people, terrorists and civilians alike. That is - or would be if anyone bothered suing the US government - a war crime quite similar to what terrorist do.
When your actions are so very similar to your enemies', you can't argue morals, human rights or whatever. You're only allowed to pretend at fighting for survival... In which case morals don't apply, but the international rules still do. At least when you're not one of the most dangerous countries on earth.
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re:
1- you say yourself that the probability is insanely small... so how does that make a probable cause? Given the chances, that's more of an "improbable cause". Good reason to reject it as a reason to break communication security.
2- if they had such a masterfully executed plan, why throw the whole concept of keeping it hidden and risk everything by starting a suicide attack like this? That's the kind of stupid plan that only exist in James Bond movies, just so the hero has something to start investigating.
On the post: Rage Against The Convoluted 'Rage' Trademark Dispute
People could still use them, just without trademark.
On the post: We Read All 20 Filings In Support Of Apple Against The FBI; Here Are The Most Interesting Points
Re: A tricky balance
France had a "debate" after January last year. It was about pushing for new and quite extreme laws extending the government ability to spy on basically everyone.
A handful of politicians were all for it; all security, legal and even counterterrorism experts were against it.
Can you guess what the result was?
On the post: Amazon Removes Encryption Support, Just As Its CTO Says 'Encryption Is Mandatory'
Follow the path of Sony
Starting down this path is a bad message to send to your customers..
On the post: Yes, Donald Trump Can Create Problems For Free Speech & The First Amendment
Re: Whatever else
You're assuming being rich means not being greedy.
Next >>