IF NFTs were actually what their advocates claimed, Parker would have actually made the video impossible to remove from the internet (or more impossible, i suppose?). Because the immutable blockchain would retain that video in a publicly available location that can never be removed. That's the whole point of the public ledger. Thankfully, the best the NFT does is point to the actual video, which needs to be online for the NFT to mean anything, therefore doing literally the opposite of your stated goal.
during the BLM protests, I talked a lot with a right winger who I had thought was more left. Our conversations left BLM and moved into general policing issues. She was all in believing in the claims of rampant sex trafficking (specifically sex trafficking) across our borders.
Seeing an opportunity, I pointed out that organizations fighting sex trafficking face a serious issue - legally the victims of sex trafficking are themselves criminals for the rapes the faced. This prevents victims from reporting their crimes out of the very real fear of facing criminal prosecution. Some cases have even seen traffickers never even get arrested, while their victims are convicted for the crime of being raped.
This issue is so bad the state of CA passed a law preventing the police from arresting sex workers (including those being raped under the guise of sex work) who report more serious crimes they are a victim of that require the victim to disclose their sex worker status in 2019. I pointed out that if we actually prosecuted sex traffickers, instead of their victims, we might see less sex trafficking.
Not entirely Surprisingly, my ex-friend wasn't concerned that we let traffickers go free to focus on arresting rape victims who confessed they were raped for profit. Because rape victims aren't people under the law and order lens. They are violent criminals, because otherwise they would have let themselves be killed like the real people they have to step on.
We've all said it before. To the police, the question isn't if you are guilty, it is what are you guilty of. And to hell with building a rapport with the community, lets just outlaw doors and crime will magically be solved.
Id blame the severe drop off in cable subscriptions, and the poor showing of past streaming, with blackouts to funnel finals into US primetime undermining the whole live sports aspects. particularly with peacock's underdeveloped offering further undermining streaming viability last year. Add on top the olympics weren't advertised outside of NBC offerings, reducing visibility for cord cutters.
Even if we'd had celebrity athletes, there are distinct failings in the offering in previous years and now that drive viewership away.
Remember when Parler banned people, and didn't tell them why until there was a backlash, and then a bunch of trolls tried to claim Parler gave a reason and that why it was different? Be prepared. The bullshit is coming.
Neil young made the decision to tell his publisher to tell spotify "drop rogan or young". Spotify made the proactive decision to respond. Its decision was that it would drop Young.
No one is discounting Young's decisions, but you have completely discounted that Spotify also had a choice. And even though profit made that decision a foregone conclusion, Young gave them the option to base their decision on something other than profit. Spotify made a decision.
As Koby pointed out, I really meant to say lobbyists, drawing from the quote indicating that lobbyists and the courts they lobby are the issue.
I think right now you would be foolish to expect much from federal legislators. We have one party that wants to dismantle the government and replace it with private business, and one that wants to operate the government only with the cooperation of the party that wants to dismantle the government. Its not a recipe for legislation that implements controls on private business.
Congress is the solution, i agree, if it could work, and I absolutely misstated when I said legislators aren't the problem, I had intended to say lobbyists, and even then I was shortening the quote that indicated lobbyists and the courts they lobby as an issue.
Again though, you'll notice focus remains on "illegal" robocalls, which is a problem when the courts and lobbyists keep weakening the definition of what constitutes a "legal" robocall and what regulators can do about it.
The FTC can only work on the authority it has. Legislators have limited the authority to deal with robocalls only to the 'illegitimate' ones, and have been loosening the definition of 'legitimate' robocalls in a 'slowly turning up the pot to a boil' fashion. You've straw-manned so hard looking to divert from the issue of funding, you've erected in in the middle of a forest instead of the field.
Its not really disclosure that's the issue. Its the issue that the device's upkeep and maintenance relied on these business remaining a going concern, something which no one can know if it is the case. Cochlear implant patients know how reliant they are on the manufacturer. And these devices are so life changing, and so expensive, that many will simply assume the manufacturer will remain a going concern, because how could they not, even if someone sat them down and told them it was a possibility. Its not even fraud, unless you are claiming Second Sight Medical Products was committing financial fraud and thats why they collapsed.
A) No electronic system will operate forever without upkeep. A need for Maintenance and repair should be assumed. Maintenance and repair of an electronic device will need to involve software intended to communicate with the eye's software and produce human readable feedback. If you haven't considered that yet, and your statement indicates you haven't, your commentary is half-baked.
Medical devices are very closely regulated. This means the manufacturer gets the advantage of being able to avoid competition. There is no such thing as a generic cochlear implant, for instance. All repairs and maintenance need to go through the specific manufacturer of your device in one way or another. Once the manufacturer goes under, much like with an old video games console, any failure may mean the device ceases functioning. Tools and software will slowly become insecure as vulnerabilities continue to be discovered, and slowly begin to lose compatibility with modern computers as the software ages. Repairs may be so specialized as to be impossible, particularly lacking spec sheets, diagrams, or detailed tear down instructions.
And medical devices actually face the kinds of deadly fears manufacturers use in their FUD to prevent right-to-repair, making them the most resistant to right-to repair legislation which would alleviate the issue.
Taking half a second, you might realize the court documents are government records (its why PACER exists). Under the Cyberninja's rulings, PACER is likely a state entity for FOIA purposes. But assuming that didn't fly...
FOIA the court for court documents, rather than PACER. The court still has the documents. That said, FOIA can allow reasonable fee requests, and it wouldn't be a difficult pretzel for a court to agree that having a court clerk doing the lookup work ends up being more expensive.
If youd read my comment, yeah, i get that. The issue for me was the "good summary" which used sarcastic air quotes as part of that very key distinction. I didn't think that distinction was well served by the sarcastic air quotes and implication, rather than stating what you did.
The Supreme Court has long held that when the government “encourages” private parties to search for evidence, those private parties become “government agents” subject to the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement.
Its not a good description, because it uses the same stupid language the twitter is a government agency bros use. The air quotes tell reasonable readers that encourage is somewhat sarcastic, and contextually it is talking about laws which coercively claim to not require action while place massive liability for failure to act. But this summary is going to be cited for years and I'd not have chosen to rely on a summary that used sarcasm.
The school board specifically felt a book about horrific racist mass genocide was 'inappropriate' for 8th graders because a few moral guardians got upset over mild curse words and the bare tit of a dead anthropomorphic mouse.
Based on the defense that this was in line with conservative values, that implies that the discussion of horrific racist mass genocide with 8th graders is appropriate, unless it acknowledges that dead bodies have breasts, or that a minor number of curse words exist. This is inflamed by discussions of the diary of Anne frank as appropriate but too immature by the school board - despite discussions of menstruation, sex, and sex jokes. Maybe its the fact that my read of The Diary of Anne Frank was more recent than my read of Maus, and both were over a decade ago, but the Diary was the novel that should be considered more mature from my read.
And that plays over to those opposed to Maus, the reason the school board took action, and the pattern highlighted by SDM. The school board took action because parents complained. And this complaint comports with the pattern SDM mentioned - The Diary of Anne Frank, despite being more graphic when discussing sex, is perfectly fine because it can't engage with the way anti-semitism ran deep in america and continued long after Hitler was a rotting corpse. Maus does.
A publishing contract provides some control of the copyright to the publisher. That’s what a publishing contract is, an agreement to publish (ie copy and distribute) a work, with the contract establishing the right to do so. it technically could simply be a non-exclusive license to copy and distribute depriving random house of the ability to enforce a copyright. but major publishing houses, like record companies, historically demand exclusivity at a minimum, and more often demanded you to sell the the copyright. This allows Random house to enforce its exclusive right to publish. for a book as old as Maus, Random house absolutely has control for at least the duration of a contract, if not the permanent ownership.
Worse:
IF NFTs were actually what their advocates claimed, Parker would have actually made the video impossible to remove from the internet (or more impossible, i suppose?). Because the immutable blockchain would retain that video in a publicly available location that can never be removed. That's the whole point of the public ledger. Thankfully, the best the NFT does is point to the actual video, which needs to be online for the NFT to mean anything, therefore doing literally the opposite of your stated goal.
NFT bros fucking need to die in a flourine fire.
(untitled comment)
during the BLM protests, I talked a lot with a right winger who I had thought was more left. Our conversations left BLM and moved into general policing issues. She was all in believing in the claims of rampant sex trafficking (specifically sex trafficking) across our borders.
Seeing an opportunity, I pointed out that organizations fighting sex trafficking face a serious issue - legally the victims of sex trafficking are themselves criminals for the rapes the faced. This prevents victims from reporting their crimes out of the very real fear of facing criminal prosecution. Some cases have even seen traffickers never even get arrested, while their victims are convicted for the crime of being raped.
This issue is so bad the state of CA passed a law preventing the police from arresting sex workers (including those being raped under the guise of sex work) who report more serious crimes they are a victim of that require the victim to disclose their sex worker status in 2019. I pointed out that if we actually prosecuted sex traffickers, instead of their victims, we might see less sex trafficking.
Not entirely Surprisingly, my ex-friend wasn't concerned that we let traffickers go free to focus on arresting rape victims who confessed they were raped for profit. Because rape victims aren't people under the law and order lens. They are violent criminals, because otherwise they would have let themselves be killed like the real people they have to step on.
We've all said it before. To the police, the question isn't if you are guilty, it is what are you guilty of. And to hell with building a rapport with the community, lets just outlaw doors and crime will magically be solved.
Re:
Id blame the severe drop off in cable subscriptions, and the poor showing of past streaming, with blackouts to funnel finals into US primetime undermining the whole live sports aspects. particularly with peacock's underdeveloped offering further undermining streaming viability last year. Add on top the olympics weren't advertised outside of NBC offerings, reducing visibility for cord cutters.
Even if we'd had celebrity athletes, there are distinct failings in the offering in previous years and now that drive viewership away.
(untitled comment)
Remember when Parler banned people, and didn't tell them why until there was a backlash, and then a bunch of trolls tried to claim Parler gave a reason and that why it was different? Be prepared. The bullshit is coming.
(untitled comment)
Believe me my uncle works at nintendo.
Re:
Neil young made the decision to tell his publisher to tell spotify "drop rogan or young". Spotify made the proactive decision to respond. Its decision was that it would drop Young.
No one is discounting Young's decisions, but you have completely discounted that Spotify also had a choice. And even though profit made that decision a foregone conclusion, Young gave them the option to base their decision on something other than profit. Spotify made a decision.
Re: Re: Re: a solution, please
As Koby pointed out, I really meant to say lobbyists, drawing from the quote indicating that lobbyists and the courts they lobby are the issue.
I think right now you would be foolish to expect much from federal legislators. We have one party that wants to dismantle the government and replace it with private business, and one that wants to operate the government only with the cooperation of the party that wants to dismantle the government. Its not a recipe for legislation that implements controls on private business.
Re: Re: Re: a solution, please
Congress is the solution, i agree, if it could work, and I absolutely misstated when I said legislators aren't the problem, I had intended to say lobbyists, and even then I was shortening the quote that indicated lobbyists and the courts they lobby as an issue.
Re: Finally
No need to contend, that is well established and has been covered in these pages multiple times.
Re: a solution, please
The FTC can only work on the authority it has. Legislators have limited the authority to deal with robocalls only to the 'illegitimate' ones, and have been loosening the definition of 'legitimate' robocalls in a 'slowly turning up the pot to a boil' fashion. You've straw-manned so hard looking to divert from the issue of funding, you've erected in in the middle of a forest instead of the field.
Re:
I think using a raised fist of that type to a bunch of white supremicusts sent a similar message.
Re: Can better disclosure solve this?
Its not really disclosure that's the issue. Its the issue that the device's upkeep and maintenance relied on these business remaining a going concern, something which no one can know if it is the case. Cochlear implant patients know how reliant they are on the manufacturer. And these devices are so life changing, and so expensive, that many will simply assume the manufacturer will remain a going concern, because how could they not, even if someone sat them down and told them it was a possibility. Its not even fraud, unless you are claiming Second Sight Medical Products was committing financial fraud and thats why they collapsed.
Re: Horrible, but begs the question.
A) No electronic system will operate forever without upkeep. A need for Maintenance and repair should be assumed. Maintenance and repair of an electronic device will need to involve software intended to communicate with the eye's software and produce human readable feedback. If you haven't considered that yet, and your statement indicates you haven't, your commentary is half-baked.
Medical devices are very closely regulated. This means the manufacturer gets the advantage of being able to avoid competition. There is no such thing as a generic cochlear implant, for instance. All repairs and maintenance need to go through the specific manufacturer of your device in one way or another. Once the manufacturer goes under, much like with an old video games console, any failure may mean the device ceases functioning. Tools and software will slowly become insecure as vulnerabilities continue to be discovered, and slowly begin to lose compatibility with modern computers as the software ages. Repairs may be so specialized as to be impossible, particularly lacking spec sheets, diagrams, or detailed tear down instructions.
And medical devices actually face the kinds of deadly fears manufacturers use in their FUD to prevent right-to-repair, making them the most resistant to right-to repair legislation which would alleviate the issue.
(untitled comment)
When Musk wants to put a chip in your brain, another reason to flip him two birds over one offense.
Re: Re:
Taking half a second, you might realize the court documents are government records (its why PACER exists). Under the Cyberninja's rulings, PACER is likely a state entity for FOIA purposes. But assuming that didn't fly...
FOIA the court for court documents, rather than PACER. The court still has the documents. That said, FOIA can allow reasonable fee requests, and it wouldn't be a difficult pretzel for a court to agree that having a court clerk doing the lookup work ends up being more expensive.
Re: Re:
If youd read my comment, yeah, i get that. The issue for me was the "good summary" which used sarcastic air quotes as part of that very key distinction. I didn't think that distinction was well served by the sarcastic air quotes and implication, rather than stating what you did.
(untitled comment)
Its not a good description, because it uses the same stupid language the twitter is a government agency bros use. The air quotes tell reasonable readers that encourage is somewhat sarcastic, and contextually it is talking about laws which coercively claim to not require action while place massive liability for failure to act. But this summary is going to be cited for years and I'd not have chosen to rely on a summary that used sarcasm.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The school board specifically felt a book about horrific racist mass genocide was 'inappropriate' for 8th graders because a few moral guardians got upset over mild curse words and the bare tit of a dead anthropomorphic mouse.
Based on the defense that this was in line with conservative values, that implies that the discussion of horrific racist mass genocide with 8th graders is appropriate, unless it acknowledges that dead bodies have breasts, or that a minor number of curse words exist. This is inflamed by discussions of the diary of Anne frank as appropriate but too immature by the school board - despite discussions of menstruation, sex, and sex jokes. Maybe its the fact that my read of The Diary of Anne Frank was more recent than my read of Maus, and both were over a decade ago, but the Diary was the novel that should be considered more mature from my read.
And that plays over to those opposed to Maus, the reason the school board took action, and the pattern highlighted by SDM. The school board took action because parents complained. And this complaint comports with the pattern SDM mentioned - The Diary of Anne Frank, despite being more graphic when discussing sex, is perfectly fine because it can't engage with the way anti-semitism ran deep in america and continued long after Hitler was a rotting corpse. Maus does.
Re: Re: Re:
The weird one was the combo a&w, kfc, long john silvers
Re:
A publishing contract provides some control of the copyright to the publisher. That’s what a publishing contract is, an agreement to publish (ie copy and distribute) a work, with the contract establishing the right to do so. it technically could simply be a non-exclusive license to copy and distribute depriving random house of the ability to enforce a copyright. but major publishing houses, like record companies, historically demand exclusivity at a minimum, and more often demanded you to sell the the copyright. This allows Random house to enforce its exclusive right to publish. for a book as old as Maus, Random house absolutely has control for at least the duration of a contract, if not the permanent ownership.
More comments from James Burkhardt >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by James Burkhardt.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt