This is a cool idea, but in general, wouldn't there be a major question of trust? Like, at minimum, you'd need someone else to audit the work and verify the person is not intentionally creating new vulnerabilities or backdoors or otherwise trying to pull a Galen Erso. (Assuming the organization in question is not actually an evil empire; otherwise, carry on, Galen!)
First, this is one of my favourite pictures in life. Period. Whenever I hear the word "selfie," I just see that monkey.
On the substance though... look, I'm way more sympathetic to PETA as an organization and even the idea of non-human animal personhood these days. I've gone through a huge conversion on animal issues. I'm honestly unsure if some non-human animals should actually be considered persons (depends what we mean by person...).
But, grant that for the sake of argument -- this lawsuit still makes absolutely no sense.
Let's recognize that legal personhood has a nasty history of being used to exclude humans and deny them legal rights, and let's admit for the sake of argument this is true at times for non-human animals.
What possible purpose could copyright ever serve a monkey?
Copyright is about providing an incentive to create. Does anyone, even anyone at PETA, seriously believe that monkeys wouldn't take selfies without copyright? (I never thought I would have to ask that question...)
Even if monkeys are persons... copyright is about humans. This is about human technology, human laws, and more importantly, about an incentive for humans to create. What possible use could any animal have for human laws about... well... imaginary property?
Even if you believe monkeys need an incentive to create, it wouldn't be through human copyright. I'd suggest a banana...
The more software controls things that weren't traditionally the computers, the more important software freedom becomes. We run cars through safety tests, but not source code audits? Cars, airplanes, drones, pacemakers, etc... the software needs to be free and open source as a prerequisite. It's increasingly necessary (though not sufficient).
"On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care."
The [New] Revised Standard Version Bible may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible or account for fifty percent (50%) of the total work in which they are quoted.
There's a lot Google can and should do to resist government surveillance, but Google's products themselves rely on centralized surveillance for their features. You don't get Google personalization or contextual ads or a useful Google Now without signing up for some pretty comprehensive surveillance of your online activities (and the more surveillance you sign up for, the better Google services are at what they do).
Now, there's a big difference between signing up or opting in to Google surveillance as a Google user versus having the government step in and scoop up all that data behind the scenes (Google users are giving their data to Google, but their not intentionally giving it to the NSA), and that's where there's a lot that Google can and should do... but the whole Google experience is based on user surveillance. It's no wonder that kind of centralized, surveillance-based infrastructure is going to become a target for overreaching governments.
The real safeguards and solutions that interest me aren't more secure surveillance-based systems, but decentralized, user-controlled services that don't have that giant, central data store that needs safeguarding in the first place.
Agreed. I'm not sure this project will succeed, but have you heard of the FreedomBox Foundation? They're aiming to make it easier to run your own StatusNet / Diaspora / ejabberd / Mediagoblin / GNU FM / whatever else from a little plug server... kind of like how GNU/Linux distributions like Debian package up all kinds of desktop software in an easy-to-use way, so you don't have to compile and build everything for your computer, FreedomBox aims to take the "distribution" model into the net services application space it seems.
Personally, I think they have a long way to go to really make it out-of-the-box point/click/install easy, but that kind of distribution idea combined with small-scale plug servers that you can easily run from your house... that seems like an interesting p2p angle to experiment with.
I run a bunch of stuff off my living room computer, which is externally accessible, but I'm a sysadmin... something like FreedomBox aims to make that kind of thing a little more accessible.
Oh, I agree the proposal has lots of problems, and they're definitely assuming that very few people want to opt out, that opting in would be the default, etc etc, and that there should be some "system" that pays all songwriters, rather than working to develop business models, etc etc.
I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.
But I still think it's important to recognize how it's changed. They started off with a legislative solution, something that would be baked into the Copyright Act for which there could be no easy opt out. They're dropped legislative change in favour of licensing agreements, with a real opt out -- even if the implementation on ISP bills might be lousy (and I bet it would be with a lousy ISP).
It's still not a solution I support, but nonetheless I am encouraged by how responsive they've been to criticism -- and I've been a critic speaking to some of the people very heavily involved, while I was a member of the SAC. I find it encouraging that, unlike many other music industry lobby groups, they aren't tone deaf, they've been making significant changes to the proposal. Even if I don't agree with the proposal, I still like the direction it's been heading in.
Facebook et al are the easy option (just sign up and go), while the open distributed alternatives like Diaspora typically require you to install the software on a server (which you will need to buy or rent).
Until this problem is solved, I don't see any distributed alternative to Facebook getting any traction outside of the "geek" community.
That's the same problem with free software / open source in general. Mako Hill writes about this in When Free Software Isn't better -- it takes those dedicated geeks and software freedom advocates to use and improve the software/systems where it isn't / they aren't better, but, yes, they also must cross that threshold of ease-of-use before they can reach widespread adoption. This is a familiar barrier.
I'm not sure I buy the filter bubble thing entirely. I got into an in-depth abortion debate almost a year ago with a close friend, and three other people that he went to high school with, people who I am Facebook friends with but rarely interact with, acquintances. Now, anytime that anything remotely related comes up, or that me and someone else from that group comments on the same post, it shows it in all of our news feeds right away. Facebook is trying really hard to suggest something we might be interested in again, but it's mistakenly thought that the one-off debate thread configuration is a bubble worth recreating... And, there are a few other people whom I've debated once or twice on other topics that have reappeared in my news feed often since, even though we don't interact otherwise... the bubbles aren't always things that mirror our personal views. Though, I do resent the way the news feed algorithm works increasingly... Facebook has a very simplistic view of what it thinks I want to see...
Re: When a social network will actually be able to bring about change...
5) When it's not run by a for-profit company.
I'd add when it's not only run by a for-profit company. There's lots of good that a for-profit company might be able to do, if they're a part of a larger ecosystem. See: free software.
Effectively, they want ANOTHER government mandate similar to a surcharge on blank CDs to provide them another source of revenue, by charging all internet users, in one form or another.
Wow. So, you didn't read my article or their proposal. This was the original 2007 proposal, a legislative change to add a new right of rumenaration, something much more closely modeled after the private copying levy. They explicitly dropped this at least a year ago, and are putting forth a business to business solution that involves negotiating with ISPs to offer licenses to customers, and that explicitly would have an opt-out option for customers. So, it's no longer a non-voluntary plan, no longer a legislative plan. You could opt out.
And, if you couldn't tell, I still don't think it's the right plan. But that doesn't make it socialism or non-voluntary.
Why do you say you aren't allowed to torrent? The SAC's intent is to legal non-commercial file sharing via whatever means through licensing. They explicitly say in the proposal that it would require no behaviour modification. Their intent is clearly to make it legal to share, with torrents or other p2p technology or whatever, through licensing.
Originally the CRTC approved usage-based billing (which the telcos lobbied hard for to squeeze out the little guys) and the gonvernment did nothing. Ol' Jim only stepped in much later because there was a huge public backlash *and* an election was going on at the same time. And even then all the government did was tell the CRTC to reverse its decision or the government was going to make them do it.
That actually wasn't Jim Prentice. He was shuffled to Ministry of the Environment after the 2008 election, and he resigned from office at the end of 2010, did not run for re-election in 2011. It was Tony Clement who was Minster of Industry around usage-based billing.
I don't think the government had a comprehensive position there either, but they put their foot down in the end. Even if it was reactionary, they responded to the uproar on behalf of consumers rather than letting things go ahead Bell's way. Not visionary, but not in the industry's pocket.
"Not terribly different than what you mentioned but IMHO it does give much less credibility to Jim being anti-telco while in office."
I was referring more to the wireless spectrum auction while Prentice was Industry Minister. I'm not sure whether those rules were drafted while he was in office, could have easily been something he inherited from a predecessor, but he was Industry Minister while they were actually implemented. That is, in the face of lobbying from Robellus, he still set the rules to reserve 40% of the spectrum for new entrants and force the incumbents to offer roaming to them. It was that auction that allowed WIND, Mobilicity, Public and Videotron(?) to get spectrum and launch a few years later.
It's not anti-telco at all, but he at the very least didn't cave into pressure from the incumbents to keep new entrants out of the market.
It definitely can be a cop out. But two examples of where it's relevant:
1. As I understand it, Stockwell Day isn't technically doing anything illegal. He's not a lobbyist. But, he's advising lobbyists on their government relations strategies. The rules against lobbying are pretty weak if you can avoid falling afoul of the law by just removing yourself one-level from the lobbying.
But, I mean, Day's website says this:
"Stockwell Day Connex is not a lobbying firm. Further, in consultation with Canada’s Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and subject to the Government of Canada Accountability Act and the Conflict of Interest Act, neither Stockwell Day nor Stockwell Day Connex will provide ‘insider’ information on any matters related to Cabinet discussions, files or decisions, past or pending."
To the extent that's actually true, if the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says things are okay? The system is set up in such a way that this sort of thing isn't considered a big deal, even though it may well should be.
2. WIND Mobile had to get into the lobbying game to stay alive in Canada. They've faced legal challenges around Canadian ownership requirements, have had to lobby the government to get auction rules that will let new entrants into the market, etc. So far, IMHO, WIND has used virtually all of its lobbying ability to do things that are good for consumers, but the fact that they have to play the game and drive truckloads of cash up to Parliament Hill? That's a problem with the system.
But yeah, otherwise, I agree -- even if the system is broken, that wouldn't excuse behaviour that's actually corrupt. That would be a total cop out. But there's a lot of behaviour that isn't corrupt, but isn't really beneficial either, which is tied to more systemic problems.
What effect would this have on free software licenses, like the GNU GPL or Apache or BSD licenses? How would that effect the use of Linux-based operating systems, like Android or many web servers, or other popular free software like Firefox, Chrome, WordPress... ? While this sounds insane enough for cultural works, it seems even more monumentally stupid when it comes to free and open source software, which relies on licenses that waive most of these rights at the centre of a lot of collaborative and commercial software development...
"I suppose it's 3D parties as opposed to 2D parties inhabiting the flatworld who are placing these cookies and other tracking devices."
I was wondering about that one too... couldn't tell if that's some uncommon short-hand I've never seen or yet another typo... they do use both 3d and 3rd in the policy. Oh, Grooveshark.
On the post: UK Cops Punish Suspected Hacker By Having Him Work With The Organization He Hacked To Patch Up Security Holes
The Galen Erso Problem
On the post: Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again
Copyright serves no non-human purpose
On the substance though... look, I'm way more sympathetic to PETA as an organization and even the idea of non-human animal personhood these days. I've gone through a huge conversion on animal issues. I'm honestly unsure if some non-human animals should actually be considered persons (depends what we mean by person...).
But, grant that for the sake of argument -- this lawsuit still makes absolutely no sense.
Let's recognize that legal personhood has a nasty history of being used to exclude humans and deny them legal rights, and let's admit for the sake of argument this is true at times for non-human animals.
What possible purpose could copyright ever serve a monkey?
Copyright is about providing an incentive to create. Does anyone, even anyone at PETA, seriously believe that monkeys wouldn't take selfies without copyright? (I never thought I would have to ask that question...)
Even if monkeys are persons... copyright is about humans. This is about human technology, human laws, and more importantly, about an incentive for humans to create. What possible use could any animal have for human laws about... well... imaginary property?
Even if you believe monkeys need an incentive to create, it wouldn't be through human copyright. I'd suggest a banana...
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Software freedom is a must
On the post: Holy See (The Pope) Criticizes TPP And TAFTA/TTIP In WTO Speech
The Holy See: Pope Francis is picking up on Pope Benedict
These concerns of the Holy See are not new:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1037005473.shtml
On the post: Holy See (The Pope) Criticizes TPP And TAFTA/TTIP In WTO Speech
Re:
If only that were true...
See also:
http://brandonvogt.com/free-word/
On the post: United Airlines Nearly Kills Pet, Aims For Streisand Glory Instead Of Paying Vet Bill
A new song?
On the post: Eric Schmidt Claims Google Considered Moving Its Servers Out Of The US To Avoid The NSA
Google's products rely on surveillance
Now, there's a big difference between signing up or opting in to Google surveillance as a Google user versus having the government step in and scoop up all that data behind the scenes (Google users are giving their data to Google, but their not intentionally giving it to the NSA), and that's where there's a lot that Google can and should do... but the whole Google experience is based on user surveillance. It's no wonder that kind of centralized, surveillance-based infrastructure is going to become a target for overreaching governments.
The real safeguards and solutions that interest me aren't more secure surveillance-based systems, but decentralized, user-controlled services that don't have that giant, central data store that needs safeguarding in the first place.
On the post: Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I think they have a long way to go to really make it out-of-the-box point/click/install easy, but that kind of distribution idea combined with small-scale plug servers that you can easily run from your house... that seems like an interesting p2p angle to experiment with.
I run a bunch of stuff off my living room computer, which is externally accessible, but I'm a sysadmin... something like FreedomBox aims to make that kind of thing a little more accessible.
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.
But I still think it's important to recognize how it's changed. They started off with a legislative solution, something that would be baked into the Copyright Act for which there could be no easy opt out. They're dropped legislative change in favour of licensing agreements, with a real opt out -- even if the implementation on ISP bills might be lousy (and I bet it would be with a lousy ISP).
It's still not a solution I support, but nonetheless I am encouraged by how responsive they've been to criticism -- and I've been a critic speaking to some of the people very heavily involved, while I was a member of the SAC. I find it encouraging that, unlike many other music industry lobby groups, they aren't tone deaf, they've been making significant changes to the proposal. Even if I don't agree with the proposal, I still like the direction it's been heading in.
On the post: Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
Re:
On the post: Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
Re:
On the post: Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
Re: When a social network will actually be able to bring about change...
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Re:
Wow. So, you didn't read my article or their proposal. This was the original 2007 proposal, a legislative change to add a new right of rumenaration, something much more closely modeled after the private copying levy. They explicitly dropped this at least a year ago, and are putting forth a business to business solution that involves negotiating with ISPs to offer licenses to customers, and that explicitly would have an opt-out option for customers. So, it's no longer a non-voluntary plan, no longer a legislative plan. You could opt out.
And, if you couldn't tell, I still don't think it's the right plan. But that doesn't make it socialism or non-voluntary.
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian Telcos Appoint Ex-Cabinet Ministers To Their Boards
Re: Are we sure about the facts here?
I don't think the government had a comprehensive position there either, but they put their foot down in the end. Even if it was reactionary, they responded to the uproar on behalf of consumers rather than letting things go ahead Bell's way. Not visionary, but not in the industry's pocket.
I was referring more to the wireless spectrum auction while Prentice was Industry Minister. I'm not sure whether those rules were drafted while he was in office, could have easily been something he inherited from a predecessor, but he was Industry Minister while they were actually implemented. That is, in the face of lobbying from Robellus, he still set the rules to reserve 40% of the spectrum for new entrants and force the incumbents to offer roaming to them. It was that auction that allowed WIND, Mobilicity, Public and Videotron(?) to get spectrum and launch a few years later.
It's not anti-telco at all, but he at the very least didn't cave into pressure from the incumbents to keep new entrants out of the market.
(Copyright, on the other hand...)
On the post: Canadian Telcos Appoint Ex-Cabinet Ministers To Their Boards
Re: f-that
1. As I understand it, Stockwell Day isn't technically doing anything illegal. He's not a lobbyist. But, he's advising lobbyists on their government relations strategies. The rules against lobbying are pretty weak if you can avoid falling afoul of the law by just removing yourself one-level from the lobbying.
But, I mean, Day's website says this: To the extent that's actually true, if the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner says things are okay? The system is set up in such a way that this sort of thing isn't considered a big deal, even though it may well should be.
2. WIND Mobile had to get into the lobbying game to stay alive in Canada. They've faced legal challenges around Canadian ownership requirements, have had to lobby the government to get auction rules that will let new entrants into the market, etc. So far, IMHO, WIND has used virtually all of its lobbying ability to do things that are good for consumers, but the fact that they have to play the game and drive truckloads of cash up to Parliament Hill? That's a problem with the system.
But yeah, otherwise, I agree -- even if the system is broken, that wouldn't excuse behaviour that's actually corrupt. That would be a total cop out. But there's a lot of behaviour that isn't corrupt, but isn't really beneficial either, which is tied to more systemic problems.
On the post: Portuguese Politicians Want To Make Creative Commons Illegal
What about software?
On the post: Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul
Re: Lulz
Ha! Didn't even catch that... :)
On the post: Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul
Re:
I was wondering about that one too... couldn't tell if that's some uncommon short-hand I've never seen or yet another typo... they do use both 3d and 3rd in the policy. Oh, Grooveshark.
Next >>