The government is already following the private sector's lead. Just not the "white hat" side of it. Sure, they're paying bounties for exploits - but they don't end up in public databases, they are not reported to the software company, and are not fixed or patched. This isn't new. Remember the HBGary hack? Similar presentation slides were found boasting of knowledge of exploits that were not public knowledge and able to be used for offensive purposes.
and you specifically select from that group of seeds, seeds of a specific type (the Roundup ready type), then use those seeds to produce a new crop of the offspring of those seeds, they you ARE making a copy of something you are not entitled to copy.
Sounds like the Supreme Court just ruled that a process humans have been engaging in for around 10,000 years (agricultural breeding) is the sole government granted monopoly domain of Monsanto.
Yes, it really is that simple. Which is why everyone who hasn't been drinking the patent lawyer kool-aid thinks it is insane.
Seeds reproduce. It is their entire purpose. Somewhere around 319 million years ago the first seed producing plants evolved from other plants that produced spores. For millions of years plants have been making seeds for exactly one purpose: reproducing themselves.
If Monsanto wants to design and sell some plant (or seed of one) that doesn't reproduce itself, I have no problem with them doing so. But to expect everyone not to use seeds for their entire evolutionary purpose is insane.
Not exactly the whole point of the story, but happy to share what I know about the first bit.
"Bloomberg LP's main business is selling ridiculously expensive terminals to Wall Street/financial folks for tracking market information. While I understood why they were able to succeed early on, I've been shocked that the internet hasn't seriously disrupted their business over the past decade or so."
When I worked for IBM, I supported some very similar products made by Reuters (before and after they were bought by Thomson). If Bloomberg was anything like Reuters, it was speed, reliability and support. Similar reason that Red Hat has a viable business model even though Linux is free for anyone. It's not an exageration to say that millions or billions of dollars worth of trades depended on some of those systems, and the banks and trading firms spent a lot of money to make sure they were solid. Real time access to market data, not delayed by minutes like you get from some cheaper solutions. In some cases, we're talking multiply redundant systems with multiply redundant dedicated circuits (network connections). That kinda stuff gets tied into various high-frequency-trading systems. Fast support - in the case of some locations in NY, we could have techs and engineers onsite to a customer location within minutes if something bad enough happened, and a hour or two for even standard kind of issues.
They could try encrypting the content with their customer's public keys, so the customers can then decrypt it with their private keys, but then you have to re-encrypt the content for every purchaser, and you still haven't solved the main problem: the consumer can decrypt the content at will.
I never said it would be easy, or scalable, to implement an effective DRM system that keeps keys secret up until the analog hole, only that it is possible. And yes, the problem for all DRM systems is that the customer must be able to decrypt the content for it to be useful.
It's not a fault with encryption, and even some implementation methods, that inevitably cause all DRM systems to fail. It is because in order for the content to be useful, it must be decrypted and then is susceptible to copying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Think bigger. If I was rich, I'd buy a small island internationally recognized as a sovereign country, wire it up and set up a data haven. Then for redundancy, I'd do it a few more places around the world.
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
but it doesn't answer the question of how to provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really-cheap downloading service.
The difference between "streaming" and "downloading" in a technical sense is only 'how long the content stays in computer memory'.
Preventing everyone from being able to capture a stream of sound or video on a general purpose computer is not technologically possible. And even if it were, you still have the analog hole - there's no way to stop someone from recording it with another device. In order for music or video content to be useful to humans, it needs to be viewable/listenable to humans and that makes it susceptible to being copied, and thus any attempt to make it less viewable/listenable ends up making it less useful and as such is folly.
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I guess it makes the content owners happier to not have their streaming content trivially easy to save.
But it doesn't do that. It never has, and never will (at least without western democracies going all the way down the police state path).
What it does do is tie us up into compatibility issues. Instead of the tired old "This page best viewed in Internet Explorer 6" experience we suffered through, this turns it into "This page ONLY viewable on devices approved by the copyright owner."
It's not everyone's a winner - it's no-one is a winner.
DRM products will always be proprietary. They have to be in order to work as intended.
This is not strictly true. I think you're confusing keeping the source code or implementation secret, and keeping the encryption keys secret.
It is quite possible to have a fully open source DRM system, so long as asymetric keys (public/private key pairs) are used. The vector to then attack those types of DRM systems becomes determining the private key used to encrypt the data. The biggest DRM failures involving keys you've probably heard about (Blu-Ray, Sony PS3, DVD CSS) are instances where poor implementation (open or not) left the private keys easily recoverable.
(All that said, its still a horrendously bad idea supporting DRM within HTML5.)
This isn't hard to understand. The networks get paid lots of money for licenses. If Aereo isn't paying, everyone else who is will wonder why they're still paying. Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now.
I've seen it that way for years. The difference between you and I is that I encourage people to question why they're doing something, especially if there is a better way to do it, whereas you seem to think that everyone should keep doing it without thinking critically.
Are re-transmission fees fundamentally a good thing for society? If you say yes, please provide your reasoning. My answer is no, whether it is the cable company or Aereo being told to pay it. The network is already broadcasting advertisements and getting paid that way, thus retransmission is increasing the reach of that advertising (and what they can charge advertisers), so additional fees are double-dipping (and charging twice for the same thing is inefficient). Adding additional transaction costs for copying infinitely copyable stuff is another inefficiency. Artificially limiting who can see or access your content, especially when it costs you nothing to allow it, and you are using your content to sell advertising, makes utterly no sense.
then how is it that the lawyers that write these contracts don't include language that prevents these practices?
Simple - the studios won't make the deal if they can't get the language they want into the contract. There's probably plenty of investors out there that want "to make a movie" bad enough to be sloppy or gullible, not hire a competent lawyer, or have been convinced (possibly by their own lawyer) that its "standard boilerplate contract language" and nothing bad will happen. It's no different that new artists that don't know any better being convinced into signing completely one-sided record label contracts.
The investors smart or careful enough to see what a farce it is don't get into the deals, since they realize they easily would have a higher ROI by fronting cash to some math prodigy to beat the house in Vegas, betting on the Astros (are they still a MLB team?) to win the World Series, or simple burning their cash for warmth in the winter.
Maybe you should take a step outside your legal theories to understand how the real world works.
Why bother with evidence. We have accusations. If you can assume that DMCA complaints automatically mean infringement, and grabbing an IP address out of a torrent tracker autmatically means the account holder of that IP is responsible for sharing a copyrighted work, then all we need to do is accuse Hollywood of corrupt accounting practices and we're right.
When the bar is that low, I'm glad that the Patent Office can manage not to trip over it.
Let's remember, this guy was looking for a patent on a lawn sprinkler. A few pieces of plastic or metal to connect to a hose so you can spray a wide area with water - something that has been done for as long as there has been water running through pipes. A patent from 60 years ago is nearly identical to what he was trying to patent.