Many people say that network neutrality regulation is not needed because the market will "solve" the problem. The market does not seem to be solving the problem as we are being presented with ever more novel methods of the ISPs to manipulate the content stream for their benefit.
Virtually every Term of Service states "We $value$ your privacy so we will sell/rent/trade your personal information to anyone who pays so they can contact you."
To arbitrarily not allow the storage of MP3 files begs the question that there are many legitimate uses and also that many MP3 files are in the public domain.
Question, by any chance does WDC actually disclose this limitation?
James Grimmelman wrote in his report "All in all, it’s an interesting start. I’m concerned that the publishers will soon argue that failure to respect every last detail expressed in an ACAP file will constitute automatic copyright infringement, breach of contract, trespass to computer systems, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and related state statutes), trespass vi et armis, highway robbery, land-piracy, misappropriation, alienation of affection, and/or manslaughter."
I reiterate, that these DRM schemes to control access to content fail to consider the fact that the content may not even be owned by the content distributer. Further, if the content is not owned by the distributer and this is discovered, there appears to be no mechanism for this DRM technology to be disabled.
Basically, we are devolving into an economic/legal system were a content distributer can assert ownership without proof and can take adverse action against a so-called "infringer" without due process.
The demand of the content producers to force "enforcement responsibility" on third parties that facilitate distribution of that content violates due process. Based on what I have been reading, there is virtually no discussion questioning whether the content producers would even have a right to assert "ownership". Just because someone says that they own somenting is not actual proof that they indeed own it.
We seem to be creating "law" where the content producers, without proof, can claim that they "own" content, can then force the so-called "infringer" to stop using the content, and can force a third party to assume an enforcement obligation that violates due process.
For example, suppose the RIAA tells a University network administrator that a certain song is "owned" by them. The University without proof then does something to the student and after extensive investigation, it is determined that the song was really in the public domain?
I neglected in my post to explain the relevance of my post to Mike's column concerning Nielsen becoming a copyright cop. There have been many posts on TechDirt exposing efforts by various parties to force third party's to act as copyright cops.
In reading these posts, it became apparent that we may be missing a critical due process issue. In short those who wish to create copyright cops seem to believe that their simple assertion of ownership is proof of ownership. That is simply not the case. Furthermore, the third party that is being forced to become a copyright cop has no way to determine whether the content is really "protected" or not. This would appear to create a significant liability issue, but then I am not a lawyer.
Besides the obvious fact that DRM does not work, there is the issue that a content producer may not even posses "ownership" of the material. Simply put, there is no over-site entity that "certifies" that the content producer actually possess ownership of the content and would therefore have a "right" to use DRM technologies (even if it does not work). The use of DRM technologies simply gives the content producer the aura of ownership.
From the consumer's perspective, there does not appear to be any method for the consumer to force a content producer who is misusing DRM technologies to stop that behavior.
Security, as a concept is to ambiguous. Security to me is protection from external threats. The use of DRM technologies is NOT security. Hiding DRM related issues under the umbrella of concept of security is Orwellian Newspeak.
On the issue of security, on several occasions I have had to work on an unbootable windows system. It sure would be nice if I could boot from the Windows CD and work on the computer, but alas, Microsoft seems to have made that impossible. I assume that this was done for "security reasons" to prevent someone from walking around with a CD to get access to your computer. These type of "security" unfortunately is useless anyway and simply makes it harder to work on your computer.
Quite true. It's unfortunate that a consumers monetary/time costs are not considered when a company whines about their lost dollars.
Recently, I bought my daughter a Samsung MP3 player, it has a proprietary USB cable. That is totally unnecessary.
We had to replace our Belkin UPSs. We discovered that they are now proprietary. WindowsXP used to recognize them withtout installing any software. Now you have to install Belkin's proprietary software.
Chargers, wouldn't it be nice to have one standard 12V charger that could be used on any device. We don't need a plethora of incompatible chargers for our electronics.
To reiterate the prior posts, we seem to be descending into a society where corporations (in the name of protecting their profits) will deprive the consumer of any rights, will judge the consumer's guilt, will establish the penalty, and will invoke the penalty all without due process. We are becoming a Nation of, by, and for the corporations.
New York Times article "Imitation Hits the Marketing Business. Again". The NY Times writes; "The issue of what constitutes originality in ads — and what might instead be homage, borrowing, mimicry, copycatting or plagiarism — has been vexing industry professionals for decades. Generally, although an idea cannot be copyrighted, in some instances a specific expression of the idea may be protected.
The Internet has made it easier to find and widely publicize perceived similarities in campaigns. Now, even when ads appear thousands of miles apart, comments can be made about their apparent commonalities."
Re: Re: Where is the Demmand that Verizon Stop thi
I will agree that tech plays a rule, but you need to look at the results. Results are provable facts too, so it isn't bias and name-calling. If I make a mistake when typing in URL and I get my.unethicalretail.com instead of a message "Please try again" that is clearly factual proof that the the company is using technology to mislead the user.
Where is the Demmand that Verizon Stop this Abusiv
One of my major complaint themes has been that corporations are acting unethically. Many times I have been directed to "fake" websites, either through the result of typographic errors or the simple fact that the website I was seeking no longer exists. I also have found that internet searching has been "corrupted" to return irrelevant results that appear to be relevant. While I can appreciate that corporations need to make money, it is unfortunate that corporations result to these underhanded tactics.
What I also find unfortunate, is that there is little public criticism of corporations for this abusive and secretive behavior. Sure, Verizon and Comcast are generating a lot of press on the internet and it is recognized that this behavior is abusive, but the public debate seems stuck on arguing the technical minutia of whether or not these companies are or are not violating certain technical standards.
While this debate is useful it misses the critical points that these companies are not being "transparent" or honest with the public. The "red-herring" in this case is arguing technical minutia to avoid the fact that these companies are not acting in a transparent and open manner. Companies that hide unethical practices should be exposed with demands that these abusive practices be stopped.
A lot of research at universities and other types of facilities are done using grant monies provided courtesy of the Federal or even State government. All "inventions" that receive patents deriving from research using public grants should be in the public domain. Technically, this would mean that universities, in many cases, would not be able to actually assert patent "ownership".
My "big picture" concern is that there may be a large body of patents that should be in the public domain based on the use of public funded research but are not. Unfortunately, this seems to be an overlooked topic.
Staci Kramer writes: "But it turns out that MLBAM can something after all. I just got off the phone with MLBAM spokesman Matthew Gould, who said fans who purchased games with the now-broken licenses will be able to get every game replaced free of charge by versions with the right license."
While this could be considered a "success" since MLB will now provide an "upgrade", it nevertheless points to continued ongoing efforts by corporations to use underhanded tactics to screw their customers. Fortunately, the web, through forums such as this, allows customers to quickly protest.
While the bill may have little chance of passing; it is, nevertheless, a demonstration that someone is thinking in this direction and may keep on trying.
We seem to be taking small steps down a one-way road where corporations will have the ability to "arrest", "judge", and "condemn" anyone they believe is "stealing" their so-called intellectual property on their own volition and without any regard to due process.
On the post: ISPs Able To Use Your Surfing Data To Insert Their Own Ads Everywhere
Marketing - America's drug of choice
On the post: ISP Inserts Its Own Messages Into Google
Network Neutrality????
On the post: Verizon's Idea Of Security: We Block Spyware... Unless It's From Our Partners
Marketing the Drug of Choice for America
On the post: Western Digital Decides That You Shouldn't Be Allowed To Share Any MP3
MP3 Files that are in the public domain?
Question, by any chance does WDC actually disclose this limitation?
On the post: Search Engines Should Ignore Bossy Publishers
Publishers may not actually own the content.
I reiterate, that these DRM schemes to control access to content fail to consider the fact that the content may not even be owned by the content distributer. Further, if the content is not owned by the distributer and this is discovered, there appears to be no mechanism for this DRM technology to be disabled.
Basically, we are devolving into an economic/legal system were a content distributer can assert ownership without proof and can take adverse action against a so-called "infringer" without due process.
On the post: Bipartisan PRO IP Bill Turns White House Into Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency
Lack of Due Process
We seem to be creating "law" where the content producers, without proof, can claim that they "own" content, can then force the so-called "infringer" to stop using the content, and can force a third party to assume an enforcement obligation that violates due process.
For example, suppose the RIAA tells a University network administrator that a certain song is "owned" by them. The University without proof then does something to the student and after extensive investigation, it is determined that the song was really in the public domain?
On the post: Nielsen Decides It Can Become A Copyright Cop Too
Nielsen Decides It Can Become A Copyright Cop Too
In reading these posts, it became apparent that we may be missing a critical due process issue. In short those who wish to create copyright cops seem to believe that their simple assertion of ownership is proof of ownership. That is simply not the case. Furthermore, the third party that is being forced to become a copyright cop has no way to determine whether the content is really "protected" or not. This would appear to create a significant liability issue, but then I am not a lawyer.
On the post: Nielsen Decides It Can Become A Copyright Cop Too
Overlooked DRM
From the consumer's perspective, there does not appear to be any method for the consumer to force a content producer who is misusing DRM technologies to stop that behavior.
On the post: If Microsoft's WGA Is So Successful... Why Change It So Completely?
Re: My experience with WGA
On the post: Did Microsoft Focus Too Much On Security In Vista?
Need Better Definition of Security
On the issue of security, on several occasions I have had to work on an unbootable windows system. It sure would be nice if I could boot from the Windows CD and work on the computer, but alas, Microsoft seems to have made that impossible. I assume that this was done for "security reasons" to prevent someone from walking around with a CD to get access to your computer. These type of "security" unfortunately is useless anyway and simply makes it harder to work on your computer.
On the post: People Beginning To Question The BSA's Vindictive Campaign Against Companies Using Unauthorized Software
Re: Proprietary problem
Recently, I bought my daughter a Samsung MP3 player, it has a proprietary USB cable. That is totally unnecessary.
We had to replace our Belkin UPSs. We discovered that they are now proprietary. WindowsXP used to recognize them withtout installing any software. Now you have to install Belkin's proprietary software.
Chargers, wouldn't it be nice to have one standard 12V charger that could be used on any device. We don't need a plethora of incompatible chargers for our electronics.
Proprietary products suck.
On the post: MPAA Trying To Rootkit Universities?
Re: RIAA
On the post: MPAA Trying To Rootkit Universities?
Corporations Defining What is Legal
On the post: The Infringement Age: How Much Do You Infringe On A Daily Basis?
Imitation Hits the Marketing Business. Again.
On the post: Verizon's DNS Policy May Be Bad, But It's Not A Network Neutrality Violation
Re: Re: Where is the Demmand that Verizon Stop thi
On the post: Verizon's DNS Policy May Be Bad, But It's Not A Network Neutrality Violation
Where is the Demmand that Verizon Stop this Abusiv
What I also find unfortunate, is that there is little public criticism of corporations for this abusive and secretive behavior. Sure, Verizon and Comcast are generating a lot of press on the internet and it is recognized that this behavior is abusive, but the public debate seems stuck on arguing the technical minutia of whether or not these companies are or are not violating certain technical standards.
While this debate is useful it misses the critical points that these companies are not being "transparent" or honest with the public. The "red-herring" in this case is arguing technical minutia to avoid the fact that these companies are not acting in a transparent and open manner. Companies that hide unethical practices should be exposed with demands that these abusive practices be stopped.
On the post: Law Lets State Universities Sue Over Patents, But Not Be Sued Back
Patents that Should be in the Public Domain
My "big picture" concern is that there may be a large body of patents that should be in the public domain based on the use of public funded research but are not. Unfortunately, this seems to be an overlooked topic.
On the post: MLB's Latest Efforts To Screw Fans: All That Content You Bought? Gone, Thanks To DRM Change
NY Times Article - Nov. 7, 2007
While this could be considered a "success" since MLB will now provide an "upgrade", it nevertheless points to continued ongoing efforts by corporations to use underhanded tactics to screw their customers. Fortunately, the web, through forums such as this, allows customers to quickly protest.
On the post: Senators Ask Justice Department To Become Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency
A Future Yet to Come ????
We seem to be taking small steps down a one-way road where corporations will have the ability to "arrest", "judge", and "condemn" anyone they believe is "stealing" their so-called intellectual property on their own volition and without any regard to due process.
On the post: MLB's Latest Efforts To Screw Fans: All That Content You Bought? Gone, Thanks To DRM Change
Re: Re: MLB has a lot of money
Next >>