The fact is that you can care less about the infringing content being it's not a major problem on Youtube, you just want to take down Youtube because it provides content that competes with the content of the existing status quo.
That is a pretty angry and VERY incorrect statement.
I think YouTube is a great concept. However, like almost every other "user submitted" content site, they are passing the buck onto the users when it comes to rights management, yet not really requiring that the users be identified. Their income is made in a sort of arbitrage, between the time a user posts illegal content and the time someone gets a DMCA notice to them.
If they actually attempted to operate fully legally, the costs would likely be beyond the income they can make. AS I often mention, you don't see Google crowing about the grand turn around to profitablity at Youtube, which is a good indication that it still isn't making real money. If they actually had to police content before it was published, they would be dead.
There are solutions, but none of them are dynamic enough to maintain the feel of YouTube. That isn't rights holders problem, that is YouTube's problem.
No, that vision is only representative of many major urban areas, where signficant amounts of the population live, and some of the largest school districts happen to be.
I would love to use corn fed midwestern school kids and teachers as the "average", but they just are not what is really happening for many of the students of today.
It ain't the dark 1%, that much is for sure. I think we wish it was 1%, but those are only wishes...
Dude... you make an assumption that a third world country will do a first world security job. That is just a FAIL like you have never seen. In Amsterdam, his passport should have been checked as he came into the country. If they failed to do the basic thing of knowing how a passenger is, there is little anyone can do. There is no data.
However, checking the passport might have come up with little, as he wasn't on a no-fly list, and had a valid US visa. He might have shown up as someone of interest when he came off the plane in Detroit, as their systems may have more access to information from US intelligence that might not appear around the world.
Did you see what happened at Newark the other day? A security guard leaves their post, someone goes backwards through the exit to smootch his girlfriend, and the entire area is shut down and evacuated. Human failings in the system are what cause most problems, both the Newark and Detroit issues come down to human failings.
the Anti_Mike will tell you he is correct and we need more security because the existing security procedures were followed with such diligence that additional duties wont be a problem.
I didn't suggest more security, where the $%&^ did you get that from? I suggestion more data processing people. If the problem is too much data, then find a way to process the data. Stopping collecting data isn't really a solution, unless you think that it would be better just not to know who wants to kill you.
I manage a datacenter. Our policy is that we do not own any data on the machines, so it is not our responsibility to police what anyone has on the servers. I get DMCA notices all the time. ALL of them end up in the shredder since they were mistakenly sent to us and not the owner of the data. Not my problem if an attorney or so-called content owner cannot take the time to properly contact the owner of the sites.
Do you repackage any of your user's material for entertainment? Do you run Godictube and play their videos and run advertisements next to them? Do you sort them, represent them, and aid in their wide distribution as as embedded videos with your advertising and logo on them?
That is where the differences lie. Running a datacenter, I would say no problem (but you still have to pay attention to DMCA notices), but in YouTube's case, running a datacenter isn't their main income producing business. Heck, technically, they subbed that out into the Google ether when they got taken over.
what part of "mostly" are you not grasping? You may dot the i's and cross the t's, but the vast majority don't. Searching for music videos (especially in rock) more often turns up covers, solo dupes, play overs, and so on.
Mike, I wasn't holding baytsp up as the be all and end all solution for anything, just attempting to show that there are companies out there that have some reasonable solutions.
I should also point out that you don't seem to comment on their technology (which was my point) but rather some of their methods (which isn't relevant to the discussion, but you knew that).
Are you suggesting that there are no ways that exist to detect obviously infringing content?
It is not a mistake to choose the rights that benefit society the most and to criticize those that do not. It is a mistake to do anything else. and to claim it is a package deal just because you said so does not hold merit either.
It is always a mistake when you look at them only from your own personal benefit. Further, without a clear understanding of all of the implications of various IP laws, it is impossible for most people to truly understand their benefit to society.
Further, and this is very important, laws don't have to benefit everyone in society evenly. There is no "right to equal satisfaction" in the US constitution. No parking zones absolutely frustrate me, but some of those areas make public transit easier, which benefits other people. From my own point of view, they suck and are worthless, but there are benefits, just none that I receive directly.
I understand you are frustrated, but perhaps you should guide that energy towards creating something of your own, rather than trying to scheme on how to take everyone elses ideas and content.
Bob, the problem with your idea of individual contracting is that it creates all sorts of nightmares. One of those nightmares is people who negotiate with nobody, and force the individual song writers to each have their own scouts out checking every music establishment in the country to see if their tunes are being played.
It also means that you would have to negotiate a legal contract with each of the individual song owners, which would cost your hundreds of dollars per document to do properly (with a lawyer). Every time you appeared in a club, you would also have to negotiate a music rights fee with them, as they may be on a different system than you are on. Potentially, they would have to contact their system and negotiate an exception, or pay some sort of penalty. They could be obligated to keep a list of every act that appeared, every song they played, and every one of them that claims self-created payment contacts with the original song writers. You might be obligated to provide them with notarized documents before you could play, so as to limit their liabilty if you are lying.
The costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.
Laurel, they don't have to monitor the performances, there system works (and in inexpensive) because it does work on a polling and potential system, rather than long details song by song accounting.
The cost to account for every song played in every busker spot in every skylink station on every day of the week for the 18+ hours per day that each station is open would be overwhelming, and would take those $300 fees and probably turn them into thousands of dollars, with most of the money going to adminstration, not to artists (which is the gripe Mike tends to hit here).
Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.
The system works by licensing an establishment, not by licensing individual performances. There are X number of spaces, Y number of buskers, etc. Anyone who doesn't get a busker permit for the skyway isn't obligated to pay anything. They don't have a cel (sic) phone, they aren't paying.
The other side is criminal and has been considered and is regarded as criminal for good reason. It's CRIMINALS (the RIAA and FOX) supporting it, those who commit crimes to humanity. They infringe on others and they don't want others to infringe on them.
Amazing to think that someone living in Mom's basement trying to do their 10th grade math homework also needs fresh tin foil for their hat.
If I record something on a video camera and put it on youtube, it's MY recording, I have the right to grant youtube permission to use it.
Yup, that is true - until you put someone else's music behind it, amongst other things. A fair bit of user submitted content falls into that trap.
Intellectual property is not a right, it's a privilege. No one owes you a monopoly to anything. Sure the government may misname it as a right but it's not.
IP is pretty much on the same level as property rights, as they are both constructs of the government and society, and not any sort of natural law. If you want to toss out IP, you need to also toss out all those other rights that create artificial constructs like land ownership, real estate, and all those other things that you "own" in no other way except under a legal construct.
Don't be angry, you are making the same error that many people make, trying to pick and choose the rights they like and the rights they don't. It's a package deal.
I thought it was pretty clear, I thought that Lobo's comment was semi-sarcastic but on point, especially seeing RD go off like an non-medicated escaped mental patient.
My point in the end is this: I would rather that the system fails because it cannot process all of the information, rather than just throwing our collection hands up and covering our eyes. We don't need less information, we need more processing of information. The info was out there, just not a a good enough system to link the pieces together in a meaningful way quick enough to stop this.
If you stop being interested in collecting some information, it is potentially that slippery slope to where you collect no information. Then we can all just hide indoors and shoot anyone that walks up to our house. Then we are "safe".
and what's wrong with that. By uploading the info on Youtube the users agree that it's OK if their material gets used on the site. Otherwise users can find another site to upload to.
The problem? the users mostly don't OWN the content or have the rights to grant YouTube the permission to use it. From using other people's music to mashing up other people's videos, to running clips from shows without permission, it's all there.
If the OWNERS of the content want to publish it, they can do it. It isn't up to the public to decide if a clip should be shared freely or not. Can you imagine your neighbors deciding that you should share your car, your house, your electricity, heat, your wife / husband / daughter for "entertainment"? If you want to have some rights, you should respect the rights of others.
Again, what's wrong with this. If it's what the people want then there is nothing wrong with it. For the government to intervene would be going against the public will and why should YOUR specific will get served just because you're more selfish than others?
Did I say there was anything wrong with it? it's actually a very nice system they have developed, with one major problem: they don't have the rights to much of their inventory of product, and this sort of non-hosting interface makes them much more than a file host, which puts them legally in a very different place.
You are a very selfish person.
I would be very upset if retarded laws turned the Internet into what the cable/telco industry currently is. The government shouldn't just serve evil rich people.
I'm selfish? You are the one suggesting that we ignore the rights of content creators because it suits your personal desires.
Honestly your entire post reads like a whiny schoolkid who has never created anything of value in their lives, never owned anything of value, and never lost anything of value. At least TRY to see the other side, rather than concentrating on your juvenile "mommy, mommy, mommy, I want this" tendencies.
Yes. I mean places where teachers get attacked, shot, raped, and live in fear every day. The places where teachers have to park their cars in fenced in enclosures, walk to their cars in groups, and never walk down the hallways of the schools alone. Places where 90% of the class time is given over to trying to get the students to behave, rather than actually teaching them anything. The places where the system has no effect punishment system for students who break the rules. Places where teachers no longer worry about spitballs, it's where they worry about getting shanked when the turn around to write on the blackboard.
In the end, we just have to look back over the last few years and ask ourselves "What would happen if we just let them fail"?
Chrysler gone. GM gone. Half of Wall Street gone. Major banks gone. FDIC broke. You can imagine all the fall out.
One only has to look at Japan, who's forward progress was essentially stopped when their bubble economy burst. Even today, they are still paying the price of a system that is effectively stopped cold by the weight of unpaid loans and overvalued real estate.
Effectively, what has happened in the last couple of years would have been disruptive on the same level as the great depression, which isn't beneficial to anyone. It would be all but fatal.
So the guys main points (as Mike highlighted)?
Number 1 had to happen, the choices were less than desirable. That doesn't mean it is something that is going to exist for long, and in fact many of the companies that received funds are working hard to pay them back (in part because until they pay back TARP money, they can't over pay their executives). Much of this kept the US from becomes a second world nation overnight.
Number 2? Well, there has to be some regulation to make the system work. The lack of regulation in a very narrow area (repackaging and reselling slices of loans) is one of the key reasons that the US is in it's current situation. Back off regulation would in the end just create more of these sorts of situations, which aren't just toxic for the companies involved, but for all of us.
Number 3? The education system in itself isn't the problem, the problem lies in the people using it. When a student's day is more about not getting shot on the way to school, not getting forced into a street gang to survive, and not going home to an uncaring home environment, perhaps the school experience would be better. The system has been corrupted to go from one of education to one of group survival, and the end result is uneducated students who do know how to hotwire a car, how to make a crack pipe, and how to avoid getting the "5-0" up their asses. Otherwise, they learn little. But that goes back to the issues of home life and social situation, not of the education system itself.
Number 4? Well, it seems a little in contradiction to number 3, doesn't it? If Americans have to spend their time competing with people from outside the country, who absorb the better paying jobs (and tend to lower the pay for those jobs), then there is little to aspire to for the people having trouble in number 3.
Immigration is the US's biggest problem, the large latino population is making this a political football that nobody wants to carry. Quite simply, a hard push needs to be made to move illegal aliens out of the US. California is going bankrupt trying to provide services to people who work under the table and send their money out of the country. They are educating children who have no right to be here. until that issue is resolved, number 3 isn't going to get any better, and there will be little support for number 4.
My feeling is while the writer is very well intentioned, he looking at trying to "flip this house" without addressing the real structural issues of the US. Paint and a nice green lawn seem nice, but if the building is still falling over, you have fixed nothing, just passed the problem to the next sucker. That isn't helping.
FCC is pretty much a lost organization, killed by Mr George W Bush who allowed a very political appointee to run the show (Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell). He was, IMHO, a completely political hack more interested in furthering conservative values than actually doing right by the people as a whole.
In those 5 years, the FCC lost pretty much all of it's credibility. It's pretty hard to get back from this one.
Net Neutrality is something that would likely require new laws rather than just guidelines from the FCC or others to accomplish, and may still have some constitutional issues. It certainly appears to be something beyond the FCC's powers.
It isn't my fault that (a) you are debating the person and not the ideas, and (b) that you can't detect overwhelming sarcasm all by itself, and (c) that you seem to have forgotten about the "reply to this comment" link.
But hey, watching you have a major flip out made my weekend. Thanks :)
That the is crux of the matter - Youtube isn't JUST a host, and their income isn't garnered only by hosting, but also by creating an entertaining website, with a nice design, layout, tracking top clips, comments, feeds, playlists, and all sorts of other things not related directly to hosting. It is the reason that DMCA safe harbor provisions may not (and should not) apply, as they are not only providing hosting, but in fact re-using the user submitted content as feature material on their entertainment website.
A pure host would accept the material, and it would be up to the user using the hosting to tell people how to find it (example, running their own website). Youtube's main interface isn't based on users, it aggregates all submitted content, sorts it, allows other users to rate it, and then re-publishes that content based on those ratings and taggings.
As for tracking content, there are a number of things that can be done. There are companies like this:
who have worked on this sort of thing for years, Mark Ishikawa is a very interesting person to talk to, I met him a number of years ago when BayTSP was first started.
Considering some of the recent judgements against Torrent style sites, I would not be shocked for the courts to rule in Viacom's favor, putting YouTube in a position to have to do much more to stay legal.
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact is that you can care less about the infringing content being it's not a major problem on Youtube, you just want to take down Youtube because it provides content that competes with the content of the existing status quo.
That is a pretty angry and VERY incorrect statement.
I think YouTube is a great concept. However, like almost every other "user submitted" content site, they are passing the buck onto the users when it comes to rights management, yet not really requiring that the users be identified. Their income is made in a sort of arbitrage, between the time a user posts illegal content and the time someone gets a DMCA notice to them.
If they actually attempted to operate fully legally, the costs would likely be beyond the income they can make. AS I often mention, you don't see Google crowing about the grand turn around to profitablity at Youtube, which is a good indication that it still isn't making real money. If they actually had to police content before it was published, they would be dead.
There are solutions, but none of them are dynamic enough to maintain the feel of YouTube. That isn't rights holders problem, that is YouTube's problem.
On the post: Can The US Continue To Innovate At A Necessary Rate Without Causing Complete Social Upheaval?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would love to use corn fed midwestern school kids and teachers as the "average", but they just are not what is really happening for many of the students of today.
It ain't the dark 1%, that much is for sure. I think we wish it was 1%, but those are only wishes...
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, checking the passport might have come up with little, as he wasn't on a no-fly list, and had a valid US visa. He might have shown up as someone of interest when he came off the plane in Detroit, as their systems may have more access to information from US intelligence that might not appear around the world.
Did you see what happened at Newark the other day? A security guard leaves their post, someone goes backwards through the exit to smootch his girlfriend, and the entire area is shut down and evacuated. Human failings in the system are what cause most problems, both the Newark and Detroit issues come down to human failings.
the Anti_Mike will tell you he is correct and we need more security because the existing security procedures were followed with such diligence that additional duties wont be a problem.
I didn't suggest more security, where the $%&^ did you get that from? I suggestion more data processing people. If the problem is too much data, then find a way to process the data. Stopping collecting data isn't really a solution, unless you think that it would be better just not to know who wants to kill you.
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re:
Do you repackage any of your user's material for entertainment? Do you run Godictube and play their videos and run advertisements next to them? Do you sort them, represent them, and aid in their wide distribution as as embedded videos with your advertising and logo on them?
That is where the differences lie. Running a datacenter, I would say no problem (but you still have to pay attention to DMCA notices), but in YouTube's case, running a datacenter isn't their main income producing business. Heck, technically, they subbed that out into the Google ether when they got taken over.
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygykMyj9NZo&feature=topvideos
Zoom forward to about 9 minutes 5 seconds in. Nice music in the background. Do you think the band might have approved it? I suspect not.
It's all over the place. :)
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should also point out that you don't seem to comment on their technology (which was my point) but rather some of their methods (which isn't relevant to the discussion, but you knew that).
Are you suggesting that there are no ways that exist to detect obviously infringing content?
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is always a mistake when you look at them only from your own personal benefit. Further, without a clear understanding of all of the implications of various IP laws, it is impossible for most people to truly understand their benefit to society.
Further, and this is very important, laws don't have to benefit everyone in society evenly. There is no "right to equal satisfaction" in the US constitution. No parking zones absolutely frustrate me, but some of those areas make public transit easier, which benefits other people. From my own point of view, they suck and are worthless, but there are benefits, just none that I receive directly.
I understand you are frustrated, but perhaps you should guide that energy towards creating something of your own, rather than trying to scheme on how to take everyone elses ideas and content.
On the post: Vancouver Train System To Charge Buskers Huge Fees To Play In Stations
Re: @compgeek
It also means that you would have to negotiate a legal contract with each of the individual song owners, which would cost your hundreds of dollars per document to do properly (with a lawyer). Every time you appeared in a club, you would also have to negotiate a music rights fee with them, as they may be on a different system than you are on. Potentially, they would have to contact their system and negotiate an exception, or pay some sort of penalty. They could be obligated to keep a list of every act that appeared, every song they played, and every one of them that claims self-created payment contacts with the original song writers. You might be obligated to provide them with notarized documents before you could play, so as to limit their liabilty if you are lying.
The costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.
On the post: Vancouver Train System To Charge Buskers Huge Fees To Play In Stations
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cost to account for every song played in every busker spot in every skylink station on every day of the week for the 18+ hours per day that each station is open would be overwhelming, and would take those $300 fees and probably turn them into thousands of dollars, with most of the money going to adminstration, not to artists (which is the gripe Mike tends to hit here).
Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.
The system works by licensing an establishment, not by licensing individual performances. There are X number of spaces, Y number of buskers, etc. Anyone who doesn't get a busker permit for the skyway isn't obligated to pay anything. They don't have a cel (sic) phone, they aren't paying.
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing to think that someone living in Mom's basement trying to do their 10th grade math homework also needs fresh tin foil for their hat.
Bravo!
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup, that is true - until you put someone else's music behind it, amongst other things. A fair bit of user submitted content falls into that trap.
Intellectual property is not a right, it's a privilege. No one owes you a monopoly to anything. Sure the government may misname it as a right but it's not.
IP is pretty much on the same level as property rights, as they are both constructs of the government and society, and not any sort of natural law. If you want to toss out IP, you need to also toss out all those other rights that create artificial constructs like land ownership, real estate, and all those other things that you "own" in no other way except under a legal construct.
Don't be angry, you are making the same error that many people make, trying to pick and choose the rights they like and the rights they don't. It's a package deal.
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Yep
dismissive anonymous fool ftw.
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point in the end is this: I would rather that the system fails because it cannot process all of the information, rather than just throwing our collection hands up and covering our eyes. We don't need less information, we need more processing of information. The info was out there, just not a a good enough system to link the pieces together in a meaningful way quick enough to stop this.
If you stop being interested in collecting some information, it is potentially that slippery slope to where you collect no information. Then we can all just hide indoors and shoot anyone that walks up to our house. Then we are "safe".
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem? the users mostly don't OWN the content or have the rights to grant YouTube the permission to use it. From using other people's music to mashing up other people's videos, to running clips from shows without permission, it's all there.
If the OWNERS of the content want to publish it, they can do it. It isn't up to the public to decide if a clip should be shared freely or not. Can you imagine your neighbors deciding that you should share your car, your house, your electricity, heat, your wife / husband / daughter for "entertainment"? If you want to have some rights, you should respect the rights of others.
Again, what's wrong with this. If it's what the people want then there is nothing wrong with it. For the government to intervene would be going against the public will and why should YOUR specific will get served just because you're more selfish than others?
Did I say there was anything wrong with it? it's actually a very nice system they have developed, with one major problem: they don't have the rights to much of their inventory of product, and this sort of non-hosting interface makes them much more than a file host, which puts them legally in a very different place.
You are a very selfish person.
I would be very upset if retarded laws turned the Internet into what the cable/telco industry currently is. The government shouldn't just serve evil rich people.
I'm selfish? You are the one suggesting that we ignore the rights of content creators because it suits your personal desires.
Honestly your entire post reads like a whiny schoolkid who has never created anything of value in their lives, never owned anything of value, and never lost anything of value. At least TRY to see the other side, rather than concentrating on your juvenile "mommy, mommy, mommy, I want this" tendencies.
On the post: Can The US Continue To Innovate At A Necessary Rate Without Causing Complete Social Upheaval?
Re: Re:
yeah, that place.
On the post: Can The US Continue To Innovate At A Necessary Rate Without Causing Complete Social Upheaval?
Chrysler gone. GM gone. Half of Wall Street gone. Major banks gone. FDIC broke. You can imagine all the fall out.
One only has to look at Japan, who's forward progress was essentially stopped when their bubble economy burst. Even today, they are still paying the price of a system that is effectively stopped cold by the weight of unpaid loans and overvalued real estate.
Effectively, what has happened in the last couple of years would have been disruptive on the same level as the great depression, which isn't beneficial to anyone. It would be all but fatal.
So the guys main points (as Mike highlighted)?
Number 1 had to happen, the choices were less than desirable. That doesn't mean it is something that is going to exist for long, and in fact many of the companies that received funds are working hard to pay them back (in part because until they pay back TARP money, they can't over pay their executives). Much of this kept the US from becomes a second world nation overnight.
Number 2? Well, there has to be some regulation to make the system work. The lack of regulation in a very narrow area (repackaging and reselling slices of loans) is one of the key reasons that the US is in it's current situation. Back off regulation would in the end just create more of these sorts of situations, which aren't just toxic for the companies involved, but for all of us.
Number 3? The education system in itself isn't the problem, the problem lies in the people using it. When a student's day is more about not getting shot on the way to school, not getting forced into a street gang to survive, and not going home to an uncaring home environment, perhaps the school experience would be better. The system has been corrupted to go from one of education to one of group survival, and the end result is uneducated students who do know how to hotwire a car, how to make a crack pipe, and how to avoid getting the "5-0" up their asses. Otherwise, they learn little. But that goes back to the issues of home life and social situation, not of the education system itself.
Number 4? Well, it seems a little in contradiction to number 3, doesn't it? If Americans have to spend their time competing with people from outside the country, who absorb the better paying jobs (and tend to lower the pay for those jobs), then there is little to aspire to for the people having trouble in number 3.
Immigration is the US's biggest problem, the large latino population is making this a political football that nobody wants to carry. Quite simply, a hard push needs to be made to move illegal aliens out of the US. California is going bankrupt trying to provide services to people who work under the table and send their money out of the country. They are educating children who have no right to be here. until that issue is resolved, number 3 isn't going to get any better, and there will be little support for number 4.
My feeling is while the writer is very well intentioned, he looking at trying to "flip this house" without addressing the real structural issues of the US. Paint and a nice green lawn seem nice, but if the building is still falling over, you have fixed nothing, just passed the problem to the next sucker. That isn't helping.
On the post: Court Notices That The FCC Appears To Have No Legal Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality
In those 5 years, the FCC lost pretty much all of it's credibility. It's pretty hard to get back from this one.
Net Neutrality is something that would likely require new laws rather than just guidelines from the FCC or others to accomplish, and may still have some constitutional issues. It certainly appears to be something beyond the FCC's powers.
On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe
Re: Yep
But hey, watching you have a major flip out made my weekend. Thanks :)
On the post: Viacom: Court Should Grant Summary Judgment Over YouTube, But It's A Secret Why
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A pure host would accept the material, and it would be up to the user using the hosting to tell people how to find it (example, running their own website). Youtube's main interface isn't based on users, it aggregates all submitted content, sorts it, allows other users to rate it, and then re-publishes that content based on those ratings and taggings.
As for tracking content, there are a number of things that can be done. There are companies like this:
http://baytsp.com/
who have worked on this sort of thing for years, Mark Ishikawa is a very interesting person to talk to, I met him a number of years ago when BayTSP was first started.
Considering some of the recent judgements against Torrent style sites, I would not be shocked for the courts to rule in Viacom's favor, putting YouTube in a position to have to do much more to stay legal.
Next >>