So this is a stupid and basic question but uh, this whole traffic shaping thing confuses me a lot even after reading a handful of Wikipedia articles about it.
I understand the part about giving all services the same speed, but why is it that individual users don't need to be limited in the total amount of data they use?
What exactly is different in our modern internet from the old days when I was told (although we had broadband) a lot of people using the internet at once would make it slower?
It doesn't make any sense to prevent employers from viewing social media feeds but it might make sense to prevent them from using the feeds to get around discrimination regulations.
You could learn a lot of stuff from a social media feed. You might learn that the person uses dialect, doesn't have a reliable car, is lgbt+, has a disability or other medical condition you didn't know about, or who knows what else. Many of these things could be ultimately illegal to reject somebody for, but with a bunch of things on a feed and any number of other data in the application, it would be easy to do a little "parallel construction" and claim it was for some other reason.
Not that even barring them from using/looking at social media feeds would really prevent that from happening anyway.
Oh boy... this is the same kind of logic that brings us people slapping NC licences on derivative works they "don't own" part of because they think they'll get in trouble for "granting" the public all the freedoms to use something... because they think that using a permissive licence with no explicit don'ts carved out of it could be seen as encouraging infringement.
(When really, an NC licence is designed to reserve their exclusive rights, effectively claiming more ownership over the thing they claim not to own. It's as good as stating they outright plan to make heaps of money on the thing they're afraid to infringe.)
If you find a movie unsatisfying, they've still delivered the service you asked for. We're talking getting all the advertisements on the screen but failing to even show the movie.
just to push out information to damage the United States
Why exactly does the United States government have so much damaging information on file again? Could that maybe just maybe have something to do with it not respecting its people?
If it had nothing to hide it'd have nothing to fear.
How national laws should relate to the internet is such a tricky subject, honestly. You want to say (or rather, governments do) that everything done online should be subject to the offline laws of a citizen's nation, but when it comes to things like geoblocking, region-specific censorship, GEMA obscuring every other youtube video in Germany with the excuse of "copyright!", threats to hold liable domain registrars and ISPs because they don't perform enough censorship, weird claims that a US embargo with Iran means you can't let them have source code of free software (???), just any time a government wants to take the internet and strangle it to prevent the ungodly horror of information flowing through it they don't particularly like because they don't know what else to do it's just like, we're living in the future now, I thought we were beyond this primitive stage of humanity. There has to be a better way.
piracy is "too benign of a term to adequately describe the toll that music theft" takes on musicians
You mean equating people who make unauthorised copies of music with the image of bands of destructive thugs with swords and cannons and stuff is too nice? Should we call it media terrorism instead?
[W]hile girls are increasingly succeeding in the real world, boys are retreating into cyberspace
Is it just me or is there buried in here a flawed premise in that we can't have women being more successful than men! If men stop expanding their opportunities at the same pace as women they're not going to be men any more! Alarming!
"There are basically 2 doors that control the availability of apps to the vast majority of smart phones in this country. They are owned and controlled by 2 of the largest tech companies in the world, Apple and Google. If you want your app to reach any type of audience (yes there are other app platforms supporting phones on the margin, but they are tiny by comparison), you have to make Google and Apple happy."
This makes his argument sound a whole lot like the background spiel for mediagoblin and Sandstorm and similar open source web apps/app platforms designed to "break you out of corporate media silos" and their potentially unreasonable content policies (to loosely quote a description from a random person on the internet) at first, except then suddenly going off in a totally different direction that totally misses the point. It's kind of surreal.
'We can't find any examples of overclassification to show you because whoops, any useful information about overclassification happens to be classified.'
I thought the intended word was "purport". I knew portend usually meant "predict"/"warn of" and I looked it up but couldn't really find any other meaning except "imply in a 'smoke = fire'-type way".
I dunno, it may have been used in the sense of "implying that corporate virtue advisors are an actual thing, which does not seem like a good sign".
It IS possible to genuinely uninstall these things (or any app) if you get Titanium Backup, but of course, you need to root the device to do that, and it's sometimes hard to tell when just going through its raw list of programs what's bloat and what's part of the ROM or might otherwise cause problems if removed.
I wish more computer/OS makers in general would design everything in a modular fashion where you can just remove everything you don't need. Part of the reason I stopped using GNOME and switched to KDE is that it wouldn't let me uninstall the few default apps without uninstalling GNOME too (I think I was trying to uninstall gedit, the Notepad-like program because I use jEdit, but no...); KDE unfortunately does that a little bit too by sometimes grouping big handfuls of coreish things together as in Kontact but at the very least I can uninstall the whole group if I don't need any of them.
Personally I tend to be the kind of person where when want to I watch a show I pay attention to the show, and when I want random background noise I open up libre.fm and have it choose some freely-licenced ambient music for me. If I want to listen to interesting content with words, I sometimes go to TEDTalks, or a couple of times I've gone to... I think TED radio hour may be the name of it? It's been a while since I've listened to it, so I've forgotten. Anyway there's always radio or radio-like services if you're not extremely picky about what you're listening to.
I think you might have misinterpreted what they were saying just a little.
i.e.: Target doesn't think those particular physical CDs will sell as well with the online version out, so it doesn't want to buy stock that will just sit around, because it doesn't think that's productive.
Now, it is still a little stupid since the CDs could have sold after all if they'd actually decided to carry them, but not the same kind of stupid.
I'll have to agree, because it's mainly thanks to abcmidi being able to exist and be free software that I got seriously interested in composing electronic music in the first place.
I never knew this guy's name before, but I think he's my personal hero now. Or at least second in line after Lawrence Lessig.
By way of example, we are providing with this letter a non-exhaustive listof unauthorized copies of NBC Universal properties hosted on mediafire.com, along with theURL corresponding to each listed infringing file.
Am I reading the message wrong, or does it actually have a full list of "infringing" files they've already found on other people's mediafire accounts? And if so, what good does that do other than encourage people to download them?
Unless this is a clever plan to make people curious about the files and then accuse them for downloading, which I'd say it was if the CAS actually checked downloads other than torrents. Now I'm confused.
(untitled comment)
I understand the part about giving all services the same speed, but why is it that individual users don't need to be limited in the total amount of data they use?
What exactly is different in our modern internet from the old days when I was told (although we had broadband) a lot of people using the internet at once would make it slower?
(untitled comment)
It doesn't make any sense to prevent employers from viewing social media feeds but it might make sense to prevent them from using the feeds to get around discrimination regulations.
You could learn a lot of stuff from a social media feed. You might learn that the person uses dialect, doesn't have a reliable car, is lgbt+, has a disability or other medical condition you didn't know about, or who knows what else. Many of these things could be ultimately illegal to reject somebody for, but with a bunch of things on a feed and any number of other data in the application, it would be easy to do a little "parallel construction" and claim it was for some other reason.
Not that even barring them from using/looking at social media feeds would really prevent that from happening anyway.
(untitled comment)
Oh boy... this is the same kind of logic that brings us people slapping NC licences on derivative works they "don't own" part of because they think they'll get in trouble for "granting" the public all the freedoms to use something... because they think that using a permissive licence with no explicit don'ts carved out of it could be seen as encouraging infringement.
(When really, an NC licence is designed to reserve their exclusive rights, effectively claiming more ownership over the thing they claim not to own. It's as good as stating they outright plan to make heaps of money on the thing they're afraid to infringe.)
Re: Except
(untitled comment)
Why exactly does the United States government have so much damaging information on file again? Could that maybe just maybe have something to do with it not respecting its people?
If it had nothing to hide it'd have nothing to fear.
(untitled comment)
Life imitates lego movie
(untitled comment)
You mean equating people who make unauthorised copies of music with the image of bands of destructive thugs with swords and cannons and stuff is too nice? Should we call it media terrorism instead?
(untitled comment)
Is it just me or is there buried in here a flawed premise in that we can't have women being more successful than men! If men stop expanding their opportunities at the same pace as women they're not going to be men any more! Alarming!
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
This makes his argument sound a whole lot like the background spiel for mediagoblin and Sandstorm and similar open source web apps/app platforms designed to "break you out of corporate media silos" and their potentially unreasonable content policies (to loosely quote a description from a random person on the internet) at first, except then suddenly going off in a totally different direction that totally misses the point. It's kind of surreal.
We can't confirm or deny any of this "overclassification" business (as TAKUMI)
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
I dunno, it may have been used in the sense of "implying that corporate virtue advisors are an actual thing, which does not seem like a good sign".
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
I wish more computer/OS makers in general would design everything in a modular fashion where you can just remove everything you don't need. Part of the reason I stopped using GNOME and switched to KDE is that it wouldn't let me uninstall the few default apps without uninstalling GNOME too (I think I was trying to uninstall gedit, the Notepad-like program because I use jEdit, but no...); KDE unfortunately does that a little bit too by sometimes grouping big handfuls of coreish things together as in Kontact but at the very least I can uninstall the whole group if I don't need any of them.
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
That's just my personal preference though.
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
i.e.: Target doesn't think those particular physical CDs will sell as well with the online version out, so it doesn't want to buy stock that will just sit around, because it doesn't think that's productive.
Now, it is still a little stupid since the CDs could have sold after all if they'd actually decided to carry them, but not the same kind of stupid.
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
Whether this discloses all the information in them, I don't know, but it's there.
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
I never knew this guy's name before, but I think he's my personal hero now. Or at least second in line after Lawrence Lessig.
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
(Also, if it really is some kind of bot, couldn't they have at least tried to make a text generator as good as this one? Sheesh.)
(untitled comment) (as TAKUMI)
This should be affected.
...Wait. (as TAKUMI)
Am I reading the message wrong, or does it actually have a full list of "infringing" files they've already found on other people's mediafire accounts? And if so, what good does that do other than encourage people to download them?
Unless this is a clever plan to make people curious about the files and then accuse them for downloading, which I'd say it was if the CAS actually checked downloads other than torrents. Now I'm confused.
More comments from Takumi >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Takumi.
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