You are correct that you didn't give up any (that I can think of) when you signed up. When you use Twitter, however, neither the content you see nor the content you post are protected by the liberties which the founding fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
I, for one, view this as giving up liberties.
It has been discussed many times here that the fact that one's privacy is reduced because one's viewing history is exposed to the platform is a trade-off which users accept knowingly. The trade-off versus the giving up of liberties is not often discussed, and is complicated by the lack of transparency in the moderation decisions.
Frankly, I think the founding fathers would be much more shocked at the way the public willingly gives these platforms their power. Someone who believes in "Give me liberty, or give me death" would most probably be nauseated by a public who is willing to give up its liberty for the "convenience" of a larger network effect.
The vast majority of people will probably just choose one or the other side and apply a double standard: "Lundgren was making/wanted to make a profit so he must be a criminal", or "Microsoft is gouging society to make a profit rather than encouraging the beneficial reuse of old computers".
I don't think I really know all of the details, but one thing is clear to me: even if both Lundgren and Microsoft were being greedy and selfish, the evidence indicates that the behavior of only one of them was clearly to the detriment of society. The one who has billions of dollars but isn't encouraging refurbishing old computers for poor people.
From what we've heard about him on the podcasts, the legal journalists who cover his cases should convince a patent troll to sue on a noise cancellation patent, so he'll end up inventing something which would prevent noises from the gallery from disturbing him.
Ah, the memories! I do find your suggestion interesting, but what it really reminds me of is the period in Slashdot where people would constantly try to find technical solutions which would solve the "spam problem", and in reply would receive the standard reply ith the appropriate checkboxes checked off.
Ah, the obvious chilling effect of "winter is coming"...
Good thing that George R. R. Martin didn't imagine a desert world for his story... without that chilling effect, how could he have possibly made any money?
"unencrypted HTTP connections that could be subject to man in the middle attacks"
Actually, such connections are subject to passive eavesdropping attacks. As in your neighbor simply monitoring the WiFi transmissions.
But still, as highlighted in the post, by far the greatest danger is not using HTTP, it's that the party receiving the information is probably not capable of protecting it properly.
"Evil Overlords of the Techdirt Empire" (36:16)- just priceless.
That made my day (the rest of the podcast was interesting, also, I'm not belittling it) --- enough so, that I'm commenting here despite my embarrassment that I only just now have gotten to listening to this one...
> you will have used the image in good faith under the > licence offered, so you wouldn't be to blame for any misuse
My distinct impression was that US copyright law does not release one from liability in this case (this is not to say that a court might not find the argument convincing). I think that in the best case one would not be liable for punitive damages...
> How could it chill free speech if people doesn't even know it exists?
Simple. It doesn't matter if people know about, it only matters if the websites on which they want to post comments know about it (and have therefore stopped providing that option).
The underlying work is an intangible, and it exists even if all physical copies are destroyed.
No, the underlying work is an intangible, is non rivalrous, and exists so long as one physical copy exists. Otherwise you're just treating memories as if they were physical copies; once they're lost too, so is the work.
Your analogy between memory and physical copy works OK for copyright, but much less well for trademarks and patents. One could imagine an extreme version of patent law where, for example, language constructs could be patented. For example, I don't think that the widespread use of possessives in the English language is well-characterized as being a "memory". Similarly, trademarks rely on society's cognizance of the existence of an associated brand, something which I would also shirk at calling a "memory".
Others have noted in the comments that IP is a government-granted monopoly. In my opinion, it is more like a society-granted usufruct. Because of the non-rivalrous nature of the underlying creative works, they (theoretically) cannot be destroyed (after publication) --- which parallels the lack of abusus in usufruct. In addition, the term "monopoly" has always struck me as implying "absolute" (what would be a "partial monopoly"?), something which doesn't fit well with the existence, as a fundamental exception to said monopolies, of things like fair use.
Unfortunately, "usufruct" is terminology from civil law which does not have a good parallel in common law.
In Israel, in the same decision which considered fair use a right of the public rather than a defense, the judge states as the second point of her final summary that "it is questionable whether it is possible to grant an injunction preventing copyright infringement on a work which hasn't yet been created".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Frankly, I doubt any of those would have been invented if India hadn't invented the use of zero.
And the concept of a legal code was invented in the Middle East.
And you're a lousy troll which makes me wonder why I feed you...
Re: Only sorta dirty, from their point of view
If only you could "forge" reality, to make it so...
Re: Re: Re: The Robber Baron problem.
You are correct that you didn't give up any (that I can think of) when you signed up. When you use Twitter, however, neither the content you see nor the content you post are protected by the liberties which the founding fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
I, for one, view this as giving up liberties.
It has been discussed many times here that the fact that one's privacy is reduced because one's viewing history is exposed to the platform is a trade-off which users accept knowingly. The trade-off versus the giving up of liberties is not often discussed, and is complicated by the lack of transparency in the moderation decisions.
Re: The Robber Baron problem.
Double standard
The vast majority of people will probably just choose one or the other side and apply a double standard: "Lundgren was making/wanted to make a profit so he must be a criminal", or "Microsoft is gouging society to make a profit rather than encouraging the beneficial reuse of old computers".
I don't think I really know all of the details, but one thing is clear to me: even if both Lundgren and Microsoft were being greedy and selfish, the evidence indicates that the behavior of only one of them was clearly to the detriment of society. The one who has billions of dollars but isn't encouraging refurbishing old computers for poor people.
Re: Best possible outcome
Re: Quick technical partial workaround
Ah, the memories! I do find your suggestion interesting, but what it really reminds me of is the period in Slashdot where people would constantly try to find technical solutions which would solve the "spam problem", and in reply would receive the standard reply ith the appropriate checkboxes checked off.
Chilling effect
Good thing that George R. R. Martin didn't imagine a desert world for his story... without that chilling effect, how could he have possibly made any money?
Wrong attack
Actually, such connections are subject to passive eavesdropping attacks. As in your neighbor simply monitoring the WiFi transmissions.
But still, as highlighted in the post, by far the greatest danger is not using HTTP, it's that the party receiving the information is probably not capable of protecting it properly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah... the Supreme SNORT
I'd be interested in you proving me wrong by pulling out real examples...
EOotTE
That made my day (the rest of the podcast was interesting, also, I'm not belittling it) --- enough so, that I'm commenting here despite my embarrassment that I only just now have gotten to listening to this one...
Keep up the great work.
Possibly not so easy to comply
> give in and hand over the data
It seems to me that this could have violated the European data privacy laws, no? (Assuming the servers were in Europe.)
Re: That's not a bug. That's a feature!
These aren't the FOIA documents you are looking for...
Re: Re:
> licence offered, so you wouldn't be to blame for any misuse
My distinct impression was that US copyright law does not release one from liability in this case (this is not to say that a court might not find the argument convincing). I think that in the best case one would not be liable for punitive damages...
Re: Let's cut to the chase...
Easy to recognize hate speech?
All [generic minority] should have something done to them, which if I stated exactly what that was, would cause this statement to be hate speech.
Most judges have so little imagination...
Re:
Simple. It doesn't matter if people know about, it only matters if the websites on which they want to post comments know about it (and have therefore stopped providing that option).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A better term would be "usufruct"
Unfortunately, "usufruct" is terminology from civil law which does not have a good parallel in common law.
In Israel, probably not
More comments from RonKaminsky >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RonKaminsky.
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