Wow, you manage to be a dumbass twice in a single post.
I registed (hence the profile thing next to my name) and someone else is still posting with the same name. That is an issue.
As for the story, the ISP dropped their IP block entirely. That means that there is no route for any of their stuff. End issue. The ISP did what they needed to do to make sure the two sites were not up on their service, and didn't want to play whack a mole about it. Drop the entire block, end of problem.
The Yes Men can take their IP block somewhere else, and provided someone else wants to provide them routing (doubtful at this point), they will be back up.
Perhaps you might want to try reading the stories and the comments?
I love freedom in China, I don't have any issues when I am there. However, they do have an expedient legal system and little or no tolerance for people who falsely claim to be high government officials.
Remember the tainted baby formula deal? At least 2 of those guys were executed, and many others given death sentences "suspended" that will likely end up as life in prison without parole - EVER.
So the Yes Men are lucky they pulled their crap off against a soft hearted government, rather than against one that is less lenient in dealing with such stupidity.
What you don't get is that your book is DRM'ed, you just aren't thinking about it in the right way.
You can't easily duplicate your book. You can't lend it to someone and read it at the same time. If you sell it, you can't keep a copy. Damn thing is so restrictive, it's shocking that anyone buys anything on paper.
Worse, get it a little bit wet, and it is ruined, the dog might eat it, the kids might destroy it, and heaven help us if you get it near a flame.
No, you missed the point. There is that little thing called "for now".
Things have a way of changing, you know, evolution and all. It is a poor businessman that makes future plans assuming that todays' conditions will remain the same for the years to come.
I don't see the issue - the ISP removed their service, point. That they happened to have other sites in that service isn't the ISP's problem. They can find another host willing to take the heat, and turn their 4500 sites back on if they want.
Oh yeah, Mike, Techdirt is broken. It appears that unregistered users can use the name of a registered user, thus creating confusion. You might want to ask your offshore programmers to have a look at it.
I have to say that this guy pretty much selects all worst case scenarios to make his point. The only one he didn't specifically hit was "what if Amazon suddenly blows up tomorrow".
DRM in and of itself doesn't preclude a replacement device. There is no indication at this point that, if the Kindle reaches it's end of life, that Amazon will not permit some sort of transfer to another reader.
Heck, we are less than a couple of years total into the whole concept, and the market isn't even truly formed up yet.
It's very premature to be considering things only in this manner.
I think that this shows that he removed his personal life from twitter, and is only using the site now as a promotional tool, nothing else. It certainly removes his personal CwF, doesn't it?
The Yes Men pretty much blew it when they started to send out press releases that purported to be from the government. That crosses the line from a prank and moves right along to stupid.
They are getting all that they deserve for not having a little self control. They made the government look bad on the world stage, and now they are paying the price.
You missed the point. We aren't talking "what user account uploaded it" but "who owns the user account". If the an account is "bob smith" and bob smith is a confirmed Viacom employee (confirmed by viacom) then away you go.
A generic bob smith would have no rights, and then it would be easy to know which videos are up with permission and which are not.
It's not about username, it's about knowing WHO the user really is. When you remove the anonymous factor, most people won't intentionally violate copyright.
It is part of the security process, it is likely something to be added into the manual as part of the process. It shouldn't be online, it shouldn't even be discussed.
Nobody getting patted down would know if it is a rule or just a one off (something for this day in this place). Publishing this just confirms something, and tells the terrorists not to use methods that could be detected by a pat down for now.
When Elliott publishes the memo that says "okay, you can stop patdowns"... you know where this goes.
It's a nice rant Mike, but in the end, giving the enemies access to your security manual is not a good idea. Spreading what should be secured information is a truly bad idea as well.
Basically, one guy publishing the manual online can undo months and years of work, and man years of training and effort put into creating a system that tried to secure us all.
rather than sending federal agents to issue subpoenas to folks like Elliott to figure out how he got the security procedures, shouldn't Homeland Security be spending more time tracking terrorists and coming up with plans that actually make us safer?
You make it sound like an either or choice. Getting this guy to take down material (and discouraging others from doing the same in the future) goes a long way to making travel safer. I think you need to slow down for a second and consider that. You really, truly, without a doubt entirely missed the boat on this one. There should be no discussion of security measures, those sorts of discussions certainly do make things less safer and give the terrorists a heads up on what to expect, which allows them to plan around it.
Mike is using the term "illegal", which is a scare word more than anything in this case.
The site may be a violation of facebook terms and conditions, and it may also be considered an interference in the business relationship between the user and facebook.
Further, I could see some clear danger here. Let's say a virus writer makes one that key captures facebook logons (not hard to do). They collect a ton of them (say 50 or 100 thousand) and over a short period of time, they "kill" those accounts using this tool. The results for the users would be bad, but the results for Facebook could be worse, a big enough number of dropouts (especially amongst their active users) could be fatal for the service.
It would appear that deleting your stuff, deleting as much of your history, and turning your page into something else would also get past Facebook's account delete system which doesn't delete your account, just makes your account non-existant and removes you and your posts from other people's accounts. Defacing your page with this system would appear to make recovery difficult or perhaps even impossible.
From a purely legal standpoint, Facebook is a privately owned website, and like any privately owned business, they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, to refuse access to anyone, provided they don't do it in a discriminatory manner.
It isn't a question of not listening, it's a question of being physical. At that moment, the student pretty much gave up their right to bitch about what followed.
On the post: Arbitrators Says Groovle Not Confusingly Similar To Google
Re:
Mike, please fix techdirt. It is broken.
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
Please read my answer above. The ISP didn't take down 4500 sites. The dropped a block of IPs, those sites happened to be on them. Not their problem.
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
I registed (hence the profile thing next to my name) and someone else is still posting with the same name. That is an issue.
As for the story, the ISP dropped their IP block entirely. That means that there is no route for any of their stuff. End issue. The ISP did what they needed to do to make sure the two sites were not up on their service, and didn't want to play whack a mole about it. Drop the entire block, end of problem.
The Yes Men can take their IP block somewhere else, and provided someone else wants to provide them routing (doubtful at this point), they will be back up.
Perhaps you might want to try reading the stories and the comments?
On the post: Court Overreacts And Orders Full Takedown Of Anti-H-1B Websites Over Contradictory Libel/Copyright Claims
Re: H-1B
I think I know why Mike likes H1B so much... less patents!
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
Remember the tainted baby formula deal? At least 2 of those guys were executed, and many others given death sentences "suspended" that will likely end up as life in prison without parole - EVER.
So the Yes Men are lucky they pulled their crap off against a soft hearted government, rather than against one that is less lenient in dealing with such stupidity.
On the post: Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle
Re:
You can't easily duplicate your book. You can't lend it to someone and read it at the same time. If you sell it, you can't keep a copy. Damn thing is so restrictive, it's shocking that anyone buys anything on paper.
Worse, get it a little bit wet, and it is ruined, the dog might eat it, the kids might destroy it, and heaven help us if you get it near a flame.
Damn, talk about restrictive!
On the post: Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle
Re: Re: Making a ton of assumptions
Things have a way of changing, you know, evolution and all. It is a poor businessman that makes future plans assuming that todays' conditions will remain the same for the years to come.
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
Oh yeah, Mike, Techdirt is broken. It appears that unregistered users can use the name of a registered user, thus creating confusion. You might want to ask your offshore programmers to have a look at it.
On the post: Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle
Making a ton of assumptions
DRM in and of itself doesn't preclude a replacement device. There is no indication at this point that, if the Kindle reaches it's end of life, that Amazon will not permit some sort of transfer to another reader.
Heck, we are less than a couple of years total into the whole concept, and the market isn't even truly formed up yet.
It's very premature to be considering things only in this manner.
On the post: Is It Illegal To Commit Seppukoo On Your Facebook Account?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Facebook's real fear
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Pranks are pranks... but...
They are getting all that they deserve for not having a little self control. They made the government look bad on the world stage, and now they are paying the price.
In China, they would be dead already.
On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A generic bob smith would have no rights, and then it would be easy to know which videos are up with permission and which are not.
It's not about username, it's about knowing WHO the user really is. When you remove the anonymous factor, most people won't intentionally violate copyright.
On the post: Post TSA's New Security Rules And Get A Visit And Subpoena From Homeland Security
Re: Re: A nice rant, but...
Nobody getting patted down would know if it is a rule or just a one off (something for this day in this place). Publishing this just confirms something, and tells the terrorists not to use methods that could be detected by a pat down for now.
When Elliott publishes the memo that says "okay, you can stop patdowns"... you know where this goes.
On the post: Thomas Jefferson Decided The Hemp Brake Was Too Important To Patent
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignore this one people, if you don't see an icon and (profile) next to the name, it isn't me.
What a freaking moron.
Mike, Techdirt is broken. User names should be unique once they are signed up for.
On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
Re: Re:
they could if they were required to know who is uploading to their system, no?
On the post: Post TSA's New Security Rules And Get A Visit And Subpoena From Homeland Security
A nice rant, but...
Basically, one guy publishing the manual online can undo months and years of work, and man years of training and effort put into creating a system that tried to secure us all.
rather than sending federal agents to issue subpoenas to folks like Elliott to figure out how he got the security procedures, shouldn't Homeland Security be spending more time tracking terrorists and coming up with plans that actually make us safer?
You make it sound like an either or choice. Getting this guy to take down material (and discouraging others from doing the same in the future) goes a long way to making travel safer. I think you need to slow down for a second and consider that. You really, truly, without a doubt entirely missed the boat on this one. There should be no discussion of security measures, those sorts of discussions certainly do make things less safer and give the terrorists a heads up on what to expect, which allows them to plan around it.
On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
Re: Rant
Same defenses used by the other side. All's fair.
Carry on.
On the post: Is It Illegal To Commit Seppukoo On Your Facebook Account?
Re: Re: Facebook's real fear
The site may be a violation of facebook terms and conditions, and it may also be considered an interference in the business relationship between the user and facebook.
Further, I could see some clear danger here. Let's say a virus writer makes one that key captures facebook logons (not hard to do). They collect a ton of them (say 50 or 100 thousand) and over a short period of time, they "kill" those accounts using this tool. The results for the users would be bad, but the results for Facebook could be worse, a big enough number of dropouts (especially amongst their active users) could be fatal for the service.
It would appear that deleting your stuff, deleting as much of your history, and turning your page into something else would also get past Facebook's account delete system which doesn't delete your account, just makes your account non-existant and removes you and your posts from other people's accounts. Defacing your page with this system would appear to make recovery difficult or perhaps even impossible.
From a purely legal standpoint, Facebook is a privately owned website, and like any privately owned business, they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, to refuse access to anyone, provided they don't do it in a discriminatory manner.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re: Re: Re:
"The student resisted, pushed the officer"
It isn't a question of not listening, it's a question of being physical. At that moment, the student pretty much gave up their right to bitch about what followed.
Next >>