George Smythe the plumber might very much prefer ...
... to see good rankings for his business at the top of the search results rather than reports of a court acquitting him from accusations of ripping off his customers.
The difference in opinion is on the price of the information
The FBI seems to think that accessing the information is free, others point out there is a price - both in dollars and in civil rights we sacrifice.
On previous cases, accessing data on encrypted phones came with a price tag of several hundred thousand dollars. Regarding the civil rights, a google search for "warrantless searches" or "civil asset forfeiture" will surface a myriad of examples illustrating how seemingly justified rights of police forces can spin out of control very quickly.
These days, many smartphones contain more private information than personal diaries, information that FBI and police have no business in accessing.
Certainly not for trawling expeditions. Since the war on terror started almost two decades ago, law enforcement have enjoyed an unprecedented expansion of powers, all the way to permission to torture suspects and record and search phone and internet traffic of large parts of population.
And all these powers have led to the arrest of - exactly no serious terrorist at all. Over nearly two decades. (Ignoring a number of fools that have been tricked by FBI agents into buying explosives sold to them by the FBI so the they could be arrested for, eh, buying explosives).
So perhaps it is time to review their approach to catching criminals. And stop giving them more powers with no justification other than "perhaps we might find something useful."
Maybe the time has come to switch from defense to attack
While Elsevier presents itself as the brave copyright warriors, they are the worst pirates on the internet: Every single article the publish is "stolen" from the scientists.
Elsevier has a quasi-monopoly on many areas of the academic publishing market
They abuse this monopoly to force authors to sign over practically all rights without compensation
They further abuse this monopoly to charge customers excessive prices for access to the content obtained by questionable means. (Evidence: Elseviers profit margins exceed the margins in practically all other legal industries)
High time for an investigation of Elsevier by competion authorities!
Sue local ISPs for censorship and prevent them from using pressure-group blacklists as a basis for restricting access to internet sites. Given that Google reports 90% errors in industry-provided block lists, local courts might be convinced that at least some due process is required for fairly cuts into constitutional rights.
Fair use? As far as record companies go - agreed. Youtube - no
Stream ripping should only concern Youtube (the company) and the ripping web sites. If Youtube says it is ok, it is, and if Youtube says it is not, than it isn't.
If record companies don't agree, they can disallow ripping in their licence agreements with Youtube, and force Youtube to stop it. If record companies take ripping web sites to court directly, the cases should be thrown out. (Kellogs can't sue you for stealing Corn flakes from Walmart. Only Walmart can.)
Youtube seems to tap dance around the issue, though: DNS-Blocking - whack a-mole looks like the least effective way to stop ripping. If Google really wanted to stop ripping web sites, they'd have more effective technical and legal options available. Which, for some reason, they have chosen not to use (yet).
There is evidence that the US Military was behind the creation of the Internet. Yes, right, the internet. Invented by DARPA. They clumsily tried to hide the fact by calling the prototype "Arpanet", sneakily leaving out the letter "D" to hide the links to "Defense". But the evidence is clear.
And what does that mean???
Nothing, until there is evidence of actual spying. You know, something like the Snowden papers revealing systematic abuse of infrastructure by the government to spy on people.
And what does it mean if actual evidence appears? Should the Chinese government and the spying entities be punished just like the US government and the NSA were punished?
Not at all?
Ok then, why again did we impose sanctions on Huawei?
30 years back, a case could be made for draconian measures against uploaders - since typically only very few copies of music or video were uploaded by screeners or production company insiders. At least from a rightsholders perspective, high damages and a low burden of proof could be justified.
Nowadays, the situation has changed: Typical "uploaders" are people using the .torrent protocol. Thousands, even millions, of copies may have been downloaded already, and typical upload ratios are 1:1 or 2:1. If someone downloads an .mp3-file with a retail value of 50 cents, they might at the same time upload two copies, causing a total loss of $1.50 revenue.
In the worst case - assuming that three people would actually have purchased the file. The damage to the rightsholder is somewhere between $0 and a fraction of $1.50 - no taxes will be paid on the downloaded copies, no distribution costs, and no revenue sharing with other stakeholders.
Which raises the question - how does congress get from a fraction of $1.50 to a default payment of 7500 dollars to the rightsholders?
To put the numbers in perspektive: Apple and a bunch of ebook publishers stole about 1 billion dollars from their customers in a price fixing cartel.
Can we expect the same multiplier to be used for calculating punitive damages - and a payout of 5 Trillion dollars to the cheated customers?
As for music publishers - they collected 500 Million canadian dollars on behalf of artists - and pocketed it themselves. Will those publishers have to pay out 2.5 Trillion Dollars (canadian) to the artists?
The biggest hurdle to innovation is kicking the addiction - the addiction to absurd profits. Back in the nineties, profit margins of 30 - 40 % were normal for (printed) newspapers. Most had a monopoly either in their region, or in their niche, and could charge as they liked - subscribers and advertisers.
When both crumbled away, the first reaction was to hike up prices, and lower quality (to reduce costs). A vicious circle that, sadly, did not lead to publishers changing their ways.
Steve Jobs told them how to react: small revenue from many users. Which would make sense: A study** found that newspapers with <100 K circulation get >10 m unique visitors on their web site. Visitors who spend 2-3 min on the web site. Plenty of potential for new business models.
One would think. Yet publishers chose pay walls - they seriously expect people to pay $30-50 per months for every newspaper they visit from time to time, for 2-3 min per day.
Not unlike the music industry, who took about two decades to let go of the $20 / CD - business model and finally accepted $10 flatrates a few years ago. With stunning results - revenue and profits have been exploding for years, back to pre-internet levels.
The same might yet happen for newspapers. But only if they let go of their idea each having their own fenced garden with $50 entrance tickets.
According to the President of the United States of America, a large portion of the content produced by trained, professional journalists and curated by even more professional editors in Chief is fake news.
Regardless of who is right here - if the US government and a body of highly trained professionals can't agree on what is right and wrong - how can anybody expect to curate an amount of content several orders of magnitude larger than what small groups of journalists produce?
could reasonably expect their identities to be kept confidential
Indeed they could. So why would the US Government place such sensitive information in a) electronic databases that can b) be accessed by millions of government employees with no relation whatsoever to the project the informants work for?
Someone should go to prison for this. But not the messenger!
Can't help comparing this case to the Mueller investigation
If the justice department was on the brink of charging the President of the United States of America with obstruction of justice, then the facts presented in this article are more than enough evidence to lock the shooters up for a very long time. The forensic scientists, too. For obstruction.
And to squeeze every one of their colleagues, superiors, friends and family just like Messrs. Manafort, Cohen & Co. until they provide enough evidence to sue and convict the cops for murder.
How do judges rule with, say, weapons, used to commit crimes?
Will the fact that they purchased the gun be sufficient evidence to send them to jail? Or does the police have to prove that they actually fired the shot?
... the FBI should stop wasting resources on meddling with presidential elections or setting up bogus terrorists.
And do more good old fashioned police work. Talk to people, collect evidence.
Instead of inventing some "risks", dreaming up some scenarios - and then surveilling the heck out of everybody and their grandmother in a desperate attempt to pick up some dirt to throw around.
Instead of dreaming up scenarios where just possibly a suspect might have written and saved a detailed plan of their crime with all the evidence for a conviction on an encrypted smartphone. (A point that hasn't gotten much attention yet: The Mueller-investigation just concluded officially that Comey's idea about Russian interference has been a ginormous waste of time and money. The correct course of action would have been to fire Comey for incompetence and treason when he started interfering with the election campaign.)
Back to the last century: The EU's endgame appears to be an internet purely as a commercial platform - a combination of cable TV and amazon.com. Possibly a propaganda channel for the EU commission, and maybe another one for the party with the most votes in the EU parliament. Cable TV can provide that.
With the new regionalised internet, any "Inappropriate" channels will be bullied and regulated away - country-by-country. Just look how Al Jazeera and RT are being shuttered by our governments.
On the post: The Differences Between Copyright And Possession: Gilda Radner Interview Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed For Lack Of Registration
Just out of curiosity. Did Oracle register Java-APIs copyright
Before they sued Google? And did the Copyright-office grant the copyright for APIs?
On the post: Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results
George Smythe the plumber might very much prefer ...
... to see good rankings for his business at the top of the search results rather than reports of a court acquitting him from accusations of ripping off his customers.
On the post: The FBI Can't Get Into The Dayton Shooter's Phone. So What?
The difference in opinion is on the price of the information
The FBI seems to think that accessing the information is free, others point out there is a price - both in dollars and in civil rights we sacrifice.
On previous cases, accessing data on encrypted phones came with a price tag of several hundred thousand dollars. Regarding the civil rights, a google search for "warrantless searches" or "civil asset forfeiture" will surface a myriad of examples illustrating how seemingly justified rights of police forces can spin out of control very quickly.
These days, many smartphones contain more private information than personal diaries, information that FBI and police have no business in accessing.
Certainly not for trawling expeditions. Since the war on terror started almost two decades ago, law enforcement have enjoyed an unprecedented expansion of powers, all the way to permission to torture suspects and record and search phone and internet traffic of large parts of population.
And all these powers have led to the arrest of - exactly no serious terrorist at all. Over nearly two decades. (Ignoring a number of fools that have been tricked by FBI agents into buying explosives sold to them by the FBI so the they could be arrested for, eh, buying explosives).
So perhaps it is time to review their approach to catching criminals. And stop giving them more powers with no justification other than "perhaps we might find something useful."
On the post: Elsevier Says It's Infringing To Link To Sci-Hub; Hypocrite Elsevier Links To Sci-Hub All The Time
Maybe the time has come to switch from defense to attack
While Elsevier presents itself as the brave copyright warriors, they are the worst pirates on the internet: Every single article the publish is "stolen" from the scientists.
High time for an investigation of Elsevier by competion authorities!
On the post: WIPO Says Websites In Its Pirate Database Don't Deserve Due Process Because 'They Know What They're Doing'
There may be a second recourse
Sue local ISPs for censorship and prevent them from using pressure-group blacklists as a basis for restricting access to internet sites. Given that Google reports 90% errors in industry-provided block lists, local courts might be convinced that at least some due process is required for fairly cuts into constitutional rights.
On the post: District Attorneys Have Figured Out How To Turn Criminal Justice Reform Efforts Into Revenue Streams
Indulgence trading was big business for the church
The catholic church made tons of money with a similar scheme.
May history repeat itself and bring us another Luther to clean out this pigsty.
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2017/02/indulgence-trading-big-business-reformation/
https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel
On the post: Stream-Ripping Sites And YouTube Now Engaged In Whac-A-Mole
Fair use? As far as record companies go - agreed. Youtube - no
Stream ripping should only concern Youtube (the company) and the ripping web sites. If Youtube says it is ok, it is, and if Youtube says it is not, than it isn't.
If record companies don't agree, they can disallow ripping in their licence agreements with Youtube, and force Youtube to stop it. If record companies take ripping web sites to court directly, the cases should be thrown out. (Kellogs can't sue you for stealing Corn flakes from Walmart. Only Walmart can.)
Youtube seems to tap dance around the issue, though: DNS-Blocking - whack a-mole looks like the least effective way to stop ripping. If Google really wanted to stop ripping web sites, they'd have more effective technical and legal options available. Which, for some reason, they have chosen not to use (yet).
On the post: Latest Huawei 'Smoking Gun' Still Doesn't Prove Global Blackball Effort's Primary Justification
PSSST, Techdirt: More smoking guns
There is evidence that the US Military was behind the creation of the Internet. Yes, right, the internet. Invented by DARPA. They clumsily tried to hide the fact by calling the prototype "Arpanet", sneakily leaving out the letter "D" to hide the links to "Defense". But the evidence is clear.
And what does that mean???
Nothing, until there is evidence of actual spying. You know, something like the Snowden papers revealing systematic abuse of infrastructure by the government to spy on people.
And what does it mean if actual evidence appears? Should the Chinese government and the spying entities be punished just like the US government and the NSA were punished?
Not at all?
Ok then, why again did we impose sanctions on Huawei?
On the post: Congress Moving Forward With Copyright-For-Censorship 'Small Claims' Act
DMCA: Internet in the early 90ies vs Internet now
30 years back, a case could be made for draconian measures against uploaders - since typically only very few copies of music or video were uploaded by screeners or production company insiders. At least from a rightsholders perspective, high damages and a low burden of proof could be justified.
Nowadays, the situation has changed: Typical "uploaders" are people using the .torrent protocol. Thousands, even millions, of copies may have been downloaded already, and typical upload ratios are 1:1 or 2:1. If someone downloads an .mp3-file with a retail value of 50 cents, they might at the same time upload two copies, causing a total loss of $1.50 revenue.
In the worst case - assuming that three people would actually have purchased the file. The damage to the rightsholder is somewhere between $0 and a fraction of $1.50 - no taxes will be paid on the downloaded copies, no distribution costs, and no revenue sharing with other stakeholders.
Which raises the question - how does congress get from a fraction of $1.50 to a default payment of 7500 dollars to the rightsholders?
To put the numbers in perspektive: Apple and a bunch of ebook publishers stole about 1 billion dollars from their customers in a price fixing cartel.
Can we expect the same multiplier to be used for calculating punitive damages - and a payout of 5 Trillion dollars to the cheated customers?
As for music publishers - they collected 500 Million canadian dollars on behalf of artists - and pocketed it themselves. Will those publishers have to pay out 2.5 Trillion Dollars (canadian) to the artists?
On the post: The Paywall Conundrum: Even Those Who Like Paying For News Don't Pay For Much News
Dinosaurs refusing to change
The biggest hurdle to innovation is kicking the addiction - the addiction to absurd profits. Back in the nineties, profit margins of 30 - 40 % were normal for (printed) newspapers. Most had a monopoly either in their region, or in their niche, and could charge as they liked - subscribers and advertisers.
When both crumbled away, the first reaction was to hike up prices, and lower quality (to reduce costs). A vicious circle that, sadly, did not lead to publishers changing their ways.
Steve Jobs told them how to react: small revenue from many users. Which would make sense: A study** found that newspapers with <100 K circulation get >10 m unique visitors on their web site. Visitors who spend 2-3 min on the web site. Plenty of potential for new business models.
One would think. Yet publishers chose pay walls - they seriously expect people to pay $30-50 per months for every newspaper they visit from time to time, for 2-3 min per day.
Not unlike the music industry, who took about two decades to let go of the $20 / CD - business model and finally accepted $10 flatrates a few years ago. With stunning results - revenue and profits have been exploding for years, back to pre-internet levels.
The same might yet happen for newspapers. But only if they let go of their idea each having their own fenced garden with $50 entrance tickets.
** source: https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/
On the post: Google CEO Admits That It's Impossible To Moderate YouTube Perfectly; CNBC Blasts Him
Never mind Youtube
According to the President of the United States of America, a large portion of the content produced by trained, professional journalists and curated by even more professional editors in Chief is fake news.
Regardless of who is right here - if the US government and a body of highly trained professionals can't agree on what is right and wrong - how can anybody expect to curate an amount of content several orders of magnitude larger than what small groups of journalists produce?
On the post: Federal Prosecutors Questioned The Assange Prosecution, But Their Concerns Were Ignored By The DOJ
Why not charge the New York Times while waiting for Assange?
They are already in the States, and they committed (or not) exactly the same crimes as Julian Assange.
If there is a case against Wikileaks, there is one against the New York Times, and there is no reason to treat them differently.
On the post: New Assange Indictment Makes Insane, Unprecedented Use Of Espionage Act On Things Journalists Do All The Time
could reasonably expect their identities to be kept confidential
Indeed they could. So why would the US Government place such sensitive information in a) electronic databases that can b) be accessed by millions of government employees with no relation whatsoever to the project the informants work for?
Someone should go to prison for this. But not the messenger!
On the post: Government Generously Hands Back Two-Thirds Of The $626,000 It Stole From Two Men Driving Through Missouri
Sounds like ...
... the opposite of punitive damages.
On the post: Independent Forensic Investigation Undermines Houston Cops' Narrative About Fatal Drug Raid
Can't help comparing this case to the Mueller investigation
If the justice department was on the brink of charging the President of the United States of America with obstruction of justice, then the facts presented in this article are more than enough evidence to lock the shooters up for a very long time. The forensic scientists, too. For obstruction.
And to squeeze every one of their colleagues, superiors, friends and family just like Messrs. Manafort, Cohen & Co. until they provide enough evidence to sue and convict the cops for murder.
On the post: And Now The Prime Minister Of Canada Is Threatening To Fine Social Media Companies Over 'Fake News'
If someone flags a government statement as fake news ...
... Twitter will have to remove it until the government can prove they are not lying?
Interesting times ahead!
On the post: Strike 3 Gets Another Judge To Remind It That IP Addresses Aren't Infringers
How do courts rule with other "evidence"
How do judges rule with, say, weapons, used to commit crimes?
Will the fact that they purchased the gun be sufficient evidence to send them to jail? Or does the police have to prove that they actually fired the shot?
On the post: Today In Bananas Copyright Law: Court Urged To Rule That A Banana Costume Is Not Infringing
Are they suggesting we design...
... a banana costume with sunglasses, then sue Rasta for producing one that looks too similar?
On the post: James Comey Offers Up Half-Assed Apology For Being Such An Asshole About Encryption
Or maybe ...
... the FBI should stop wasting resources on meddling with presidential elections or setting up bogus terrorists.
And do more good old fashioned police work. Talk to people, collect evidence.
Instead of inventing some "risks", dreaming up some scenarios - and then surveilling the heck out of everybody and their grandmother in a desperate attempt to pick up some dirt to throw around.
Instead of dreaming up scenarios where just possibly a suspect might have written and saved a detailed plan of their crime with all the evidence for a conviction on an encrypted smartphone. (A point that hasn't gotten much attention yet: The Mueller-investigation just concluded officially that Comey's idea about Russian interference has been a ginormous waste of time and money. The correct course of action would have been to fire Comey for incompetence and treason when he started interfering with the election campaign.)
On the post: What Will Happen When Governments Disagree Over Who Is A Terrorist Organization... And Who Needs To Be Blocked Online?
The answer is easy
Back to the last century: The EU's endgame appears to be an internet purely as a commercial platform - a combination of cable TV and amazon.com. Possibly a propaganda channel for the EU commission, and maybe another one for the party with the most votes in the EU parliament. Cable TV can provide that.
With the new regionalised internet, any "Inappropriate" channels will be bullied and regulated away - country-by-country. Just look how Al Jazeera and RT are being shuttered by our governments.
Next >>