My definition of stakeholder is any entity that is affected by the subject being discussed.
So citizens of the USA, including people and corporations, have a stake in US policy because they are directly or indirectly affected by these policies and how they are implemented. So in this case I think Blackwater is a stakeholder in US policy, not because it benefits from that policy, but because it is affected by that policy.
Now please define for me what the "copyright industry" is. The auto industry are companies that make cars and car parts. The computer industry makes computers and computer stuff.
What does the copyright industry make? It's not authors is it? They may make written works that are copyrighted and are affected by copyright laws, but does that make them part of the "copyright industry"?
How about book publishers? The buy stuff from authors, print it on paper and sell it to people who what to read that stuff. Are they "in" the copyright industry? I don't think so. Their business is affected by copyright laws and, like authors, have a stake in the laws affecting the stuff they produce.
It is useful in any meaningful discussion is to define your terms. Please someone, hopefully Mike Masnick, give us a good definition of the subject of this article.
You often define terms and I have learned from your definitions. For example you have pointed out that the "recording industry" is only a part of the "music industry". Shed some light here. Clear some of the smoke.
"There is currently no WiFi protocol that allows anybody to join the network, while using link-layer encryption to prevent each network member from eavesdropping on the others. But such a protocol should exist. There are some technical details to work through, but they are manageable."
Anybody here heard of FireSheep? It's a free program that let's script-kiddies (or anyone else) hijack any unencrypted (URLs that start with http instead of https) session on an open wifi. For fun download it and then go to public place with an open wifi. It will actually show you the pictures of the people that are logged on.
It lets them send email as you. It lets them transfer money out of your bank account if you' log into your bank. It let's them post on your Twitter account. It lets them post from your Facebook account.
So, tell me again why you want more open wifi hot spots?
(The ?good? news is that FireSheep is causing more sites to switch to SSL.)
I don't understand why people use services like this. They are too big to be responsive, they have all your data/fan info under their thumb and they seldom let you get at it in a meaningful way.
But when your ISP or credit card company starts cutting you off for nebulous reasons, it's even harder to deal with. The internet is supposed to route around outages, but we've seen that this doesn't always work well.
The Constitution says noting about copyright. Copyright was one of the tools to implement that part of article 8. Maybe the tool needs to be sharpen or reshaped.
I think you're too harsh. Here's what I sent using Gannon's contact page
Dear James Gannon,
I read your comment over on TechDirt and couldn't agree more. Linking to your blog without permission, written permission, is rude and should be illegal. In fact I think READING your blog without getting permission would be rude too.
This etiquette should be extended to book as well. When you buy a book or borrow one from the library you should have to get the written permission from the author before you read it. It's really the polite thing to do.
And after reading anything you should not tell anyone about what you read unless you have received further permission to do so. This is especially true if you care so much about what was written that it stuck in your mind so that you can recite it verbatim. This would be a blatant copyright violation, don't you think?
So this is why I have not read anything in your blog, but came straight to your contact page (Well ... I did read the menus and some titles, but I promise not to reveal anything I saw.)
You are far to harsh. I sent the following using Gannon's contact page
Dear James Gannon,
I read your comment over on TechDirt and couldn't agree more. Linking to your blog without permission, written permission, is rude and should be illegal. In fact I think READING your blog without getting permission would be rude too.
This etiquette should be extended to book as well. When you buy a book or borrow one from the library you should have to get the written permission from the author before you read it. It's really the polite thing to do.
And after reading anything you should not tell anyone about what you read unless you have received further permission to do so. This is especially true if you care so much about what was written that it stuck in your mind so that you can recite it verbatim. This would be a blatant copyright violation, don't you think?
So this is why I have not read anything in your blog, but came straight to your contact page (Well ... I did read the menus and some titles, but I promise not to reveal anything I saw.)
BUSINESS PLAN: Provide a service that no one else provides (read that as a scarce product) and charge people to use it. Keep improving the service to keep ahead of competition.
Why would that not work if it turns out people want the service for the price offered?
Isn't this behavior close to what we'd call a vigilante?
Def. Vigilante
A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
-- OED, second edition, revised, 2005
Perhaps Google can monitor the click-stream generated by Bing too. Perhaps the two tool bars might iterate the results to find the one true link.
Maybe the two tool bars might start making their own queries. Maybe the tool bars from Google, Bing and Wolfram Alpha will join together as a distributed SkyNet, become sentient and gives us a truly innovative search experience.
"I don't know if you think the Bible is a decent moral guide or not, but woe to all of us if its true."
While I do believe that God exists, I do not hold people in high esteem who use religion to justify what they do. Here's a nice quote from the Bible. Do you hold with this practice? Why not, if it's such a great moral guide?
Deuteronomy 20:23
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
I want to set aside, just for a moment, my jaded attitude about the world and think about why companies seem to want more and more money. Why is that? (Think Andy Rooney.)
Companies want to make a profit. Why? Because if they don't they will go out of business. Why do they want to make huge profits? Because if they don't then the biggest Wall Street investors won't buy their stocks. Why do the want to make huge profits this quarter. Because if they don't those same investors will start selling their stock and the stockholders will revolt against the board so the board, being the pro-active folks that they are, will start making changes to the management.
So when I read this statement from Rekrul about the drug trial it make me wonder what he'd like to see changed about the system. Does he expect thousands of people to work many man-years and then give the resulting products to him for free? I wonder if he was running one of the drug companies would it be any different?
For that matter, is healthcare a right or a privilege? I don't know the answer even though I've read and talked about it for years. For that matter why should other people pay for things I want or need? Isn't that what we're talking about? There are many sides and many arguments pro and con to this.
So I don't get what was so insightful about Rekrul's comment. In my opinion it add no clarity to any of these questions.
I think we need to look at our society as a whole and its entitlement mentality if we want to ask the right questions. All these companies are run by and owned by people just like us. Just like our government ... they are us.
My goal is to take responsibility for the part I play in creating the world the way it is. Like you, I am responsible. With this responsibility comes the power to make changes ... to make the world the way I want it. I do this by what I create, how I treat others, what I buy, what I give and how I earn my living.
Finally, since both medications improved Rekrul's arthritis, could it be the placebo effect? It is now known to work even when the subject is aware that it is a placebo. Perhaps if he just takes a Tick Tack each day that will help too. I've always wondered why we don't make more use of the placebo effect since it seems to often be effective.
Peace,
Rob:-]
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
Man-in-the-middle is easy at any unencrypted wi-fi hot spot like Starbucks or at the curb by your house. If you log into your bank your account (meaning your money) is at risk.
The CPU load is negligible compared to having your bank account drained.
This has been a known problem for years. I'm surprised Facebook isn't doing this for all accounts as they should.
Four-walling has been used by filmmakers for a long time.
From Wikipedia
Use of the four-wall technique has been generally uncommon, except during the late 1960s and 1970s when a host of U.S. companies engaged in this method.[5] They tended to operate in states such as Utah, Oregon, Florida and Texas, but shunned major markets like New York City and Los Angeles.
So who will define who is famous? Who will keep the list? If someone isn't famous then won't writing about them automatically make them famous? If a newspaper wants to write about Ted Kaczynski do they have to notify him before publishing? Can you write about a famous dead person? If so, who do you notify?
I don't see much danger of any rules like this getting enacted.
On the post: The Copyright Industry Is Not A Stakeholder In Copyright Policy, It's A Beneficiary
What is a stakeholder
So citizens of the USA, including people and corporations, have a stake in US policy because they are directly or indirectly affected by these policies and how they are implemented. So in this case I think Blackwater is a stakeholder in US policy, not because it benefits from that policy, but because it is affected by that policy.
Now please define for me what the "copyright industry" is. The auto industry are companies that make cars and car parts. The computer industry makes computers and computer stuff.
What does the copyright industry make? It's not authors is it? They may make written works that are copyrighted and are affected by copyright laws, but does that make them part of the "copyright industry"?
How about book publishers? The buy stuff from authors, print it on paper and sell it to people who what to read that stuff. Are they "in" the copyright industry? I don't think so. Their business is affected by copyright laws and, like authors, have a stake in the laws affecting the stuff they produce.
It is useful in any meaningful discussion is to define your terms. Please someone, hopefully Mike Masnick, give us a good definition of the subject of this article.
You often define terms and I have learned from your definitions. For example you have pointed out that the "recording industry" is only a part of the "music industry". Shed some light here. Clear some of the smoke.
I'm really disappointed in this article.
On the post: Is It Possible To Salvage Open WiFi?
The EFF says ...
On the post: Is It Possible To Salvage Open WiFi?
Friends don't let friends run open Wifi
It lets them send email as you. It lets them transfer money out of your bank account if you' log into your bank. It let's them post on your Twitter account. It lets them post from your Facebook account.
So, tell me again why you want more open wifi hot spots?
(The ?good? news is that FireSheep is causing more sites to switch to SSL.)
On the post: Bogus Infringement Takedowns And The Danger Of Relying On Third Party Services With No Backbone
I don't understand why ...
But when your ISP or credit card company starts cutting you off for nebulous reasons, it's even harder to deal with. The internet is supposed to route around outages, but we've seen that this doesn't always work well.
On the post: Bogus Infringement Takedowns And The Danger Of Relying On Third Party Services With No Backbone
Re: The evil side of me...
On the post: Is It Rude To Link To Someone Without First Asking Permission?
Copyright is not in the Consitution
On the post: Is It Rude To Link To Someone Without First Asking Permission?
I think you're too harsh. Here's what I sent using Gannon's contact page
I read your comment over on TechDirt and couldn't agree more. Linking to your blog without permission, written permission, is rude and should be illegal. In fact I think READING your blog without getting permission would be rude too.
This etiquette should be extended to book as well. When you buy a book or borrow one from the library you should have to get the written permission from the author before you read it. It's really the polite thing to do.
And after reading anything you should not tell anyone about what you read unless you have received further permission to do so. This is especially true if you care so much about what was written that it stuck in your mind so that you can recite it verbatim. This would be a blatant copyright violation, don't you think?
So this is why I have not read anything in your blog, but came straight to your contact page (Well ... I did read the menus and some titles, but I promise not to reveal anything I saw.)
Warmest regards,
Rob:-]
On the post: If You Can't Understand The Difference Between Money And Content, You Have No Business Commenting On Business Models
You are far to harsh. I sent the following using Gannon's contact page
I read your comment over on TechDirt and couldn't agree more. Linking to your blog without permission, written permission, is rude and should be illegal. In fact I think READING your blog without getting permission would be rude too.
This etiquette should be extended to book as well. When you buy a book or borrow one from the library you should have to get the written permission from the author before you read it. It's really the polite thing to do.
And after reading anything you should not tell anyone about what you read unless you have received further permission to do so. This is especially true if you care so much about what was written that it stuck in your mind so that you can recite it verbatim. This would be a blatant copyright violation, don't you think?
So this is why I have not read anything in your blog, but came straight to your contact page (Well ... I did read the menus and some titles, but I promise not to reveal anything I saw.)
Warmest regards,
Rob:-]
On the post: But... But... Piracy...
Re: Xtranormal points?
Why would that not work if it turns out people want the service for the price offered?
On the post: Patent System Gone Mad: Google Doodles Is Now Patented
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Twitter Decides To Kill Its Ecosystem: How Not To Run A Modern Company
Re: Ping.fm supports identi.ca
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: I still don't understand how he can be charged with anything?
On the post: Why Have We Let State AGs Become De Facto Internet Regulators?
Vigilante
Def. Vigilante
A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
-- OED, second edition, revised, 2005
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
SkyNet ...
Maybe the two tool bars might start making their own queries. Maybe the tool bars from Google, Bing and Wolfram Alpha will join together as a distributed SkyNet, become sentient and gives us a truly innovative search experience.
I can hardly wait for the movie.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
moral guide
"I don't know if you think the Bible is a decent moral guide or not, but woe to all of us if its true."
While I do believe that God exists, I do not hold people in high esteem who use religion to justify what they do. Here's a nice quote from the Bible. Do you hold with this practice? Why not, if it's such a great moral guide?
Deuteronomy 20:23
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Peace,
Rob:-]
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
"making the drug companies richer"
Companies want to make a profit. Why? Because if they don't they will go out of business. Why do they want to make huge profits? Because if they don't then the biggest Wall Street investors won't buy their stocks. Why do the want to make huge profits this quarter. Because if they don't those same investors will start selling their stock and the stockholders will revolt against the board so the board, being the pro-active folks that they are, will start making changes to the management.
So when I read this statement from Rekrul about the drug trial it make me wonder what he'd like to see changed about the system. Does he expect thousands of people to work many man-years and then give the resulting products to him for free? I wonder if he was running one of the drug companies would it be any different?
For that matter, is healthcare a right or a privilege? I don't know the answer even though I've read and talked about it for years. For that matter why should other people pay for things I want or need? Isn't that what we're talking about? There are many sides and many arguments pro and con to this.
So I don't get what was so insightful about Rekrul's comment. In my opinion it add no clarity to any of these questions.
I think we need to look at our society as a whole and its entitlement mentality if we want to ask the right questions. All these companies are run by and owned by people just like us. Just like our government ... they are us.
My goal is to take responsibility for the part I play in creating the world the way it is. Like you, I am responsible. With this responsibility comes the power to make changes ... to make the world the way I want it. I do this by what I create, how I treat others, what I buy, what I give and how I earn my living.
Finally, since both medications improved Rekrul's arthritis, could it be the placebo effect? It is now known to work even when the subject is aware that it is a placebo. Perhaps if he just takes a Tick Tack each day that will help too. I've always wondered why we don't make more use of the placebo effect since it seems to often be effective.
Peace,
Rob:-]
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
On the post: Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting
Will they also fine deaf people?
On the post: How Facebook Dealt With The Tunisian Government Trying To Steal Every User's Passwords
All Sites Should Be Doing This For Passwords
The CPU load is negligible compared to having your bank account drained.
This has been a known problem for years. I'm surprised Facebook isn't doing this for all accounts as they should.
On the post: Why You Should Be Paying Attention To Kevin Smith
Four-walling is not new
Four-walling has been used by filmmakers for a long time.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_wall_distributionHere's a reference to it from 1974
http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/fourwall/
And just to prove I know how to Google ...
http://www.releasing.net/index2.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/four-walling
http://www.b- independent.com/production/4walling.htm
http://www.videomaker.com/learn/Distribution/four-walling/
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Define Famous
I don't see much danger of any rules like this getting enacted.
Next >>