"If the Guardian did not do anything wrong or illegal you would expect they would welcome an investigation to clear their names and reputation."
This again? Man, when is the "you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" going to get old? Any sane person can clearly see it's bullshit.
Just because the Guardian didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean they have to put up with proving themselves to every crackpot who can string two thoughts together. The accusation is that they have double standards for exposing the scandal on phone hacking and exposing the scandal of the NSA. That's not scrutiny, that's insanity.
"Not only that, but the parents of these teens should also be charged because they are responsible for the conduct of their own children."
Yeah, and the law makers should be charged as well because they are responsible for the laws that force parents to not discipline their children. And the voters should be charged for not voting the murderers out of office before they could pass those laws. And we should charge those voters parents for not properly teaching their children to pay attention to politics. All of them, they're all equally responsible for this one child taking her own life.
Yes I know, an AC above already pointed that out, but it seems to need saying again. These kids are not responsible for a suicide. Harassment - maybe, stalking - probably not, murder - hell no.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
So you're saying that encryption is illegal, because that's what it looks like you're saying.
Your drug dealing friend was arrested for dealing drugs (illegal drugs, I would assume) and argued that the drugs were required for doing business. Lavabit is saying that encrypting traffic is required for doing business. So following the simile, you think encryption is illegal.
Currently if you have an Android device, well fuck you. If you want to watch the entire show, well fuck you to. If you live outside the US, oh, that's a huge fuck you. Don't remember what happened at the end of last season? You remember that episode of South Park were the cable company employes would pull open their shirts and rub their nipples? Yeah, that level of fuck you.
"If people want to watch a show badly enough, I'd wager that they'd be more than willing to deviate from their usual interweb watering holes in order to visit the network's site to catch the latest episodes of the show. "
As I pointed out before, I was watching The Walking Dead on AMC's website. I got half way threw before it just wouldn't work any more and I was forced to stop. There are reasons why people don't go to the network's site. They've proven again and again that they have no idea how to handle streaming.
They could have thrown it up on Youtube, forcing Google to pay for the costs of the servers and Internet connection. Youtube already has a time tested player. While a few recent changes have made Youtube a little less user friendly, it still works.
DRM can be cracked, and in this situation, easily cracked. So if the W3C is making the DRM part of the standard, I hope they're prepared to change that standard every week. The day this gets implemented, it'll be cracked and then the W3C is going to get flooded with requests to change the standard.
The NMPA doesn't represent all studios just like the RIAA doesn't represent all studios. If you're signed up with Fullscreen, there's a list of songs that they allow you to use. If someone uses a song outside of that, then shit happens.
Specifically, it's Universal Music that has the agreement with Fullscreen.
I also think it's mildly funny that Techcrunch's noscript page is 404ed.
I can watch The Walking Dead on AMC's website for free? I did not know that. I also didn't know I missed Season 4 Episode 1. Good thing that they released this piracy report or I wouldn't have been able to watch it at all since they have dumb ass windows for streaming.
Now that I am watching it, I can see why people don't use their service. Their player is absolute shit. I can't get at the controls, they keep disappearing even when I'm moving the mouse. I can't use full screen as I have multiple monitors and it insists on using my primary monitor. So I'm stuck watching it in it's tiny ass window.
I also have no idea what happened to get them to this point, I don't remember crap from last season and I can't watch the last episode to remind me.
The advertisements I don't mind, but this is not how you do streaming.
"that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from."
Wow, is that wrong. That's four million minutes of service that Spotify is providing. They provide the severs and the Internet connectivity powerful enough to provide those four million minutes plus the four million minutes for thousands of other songs.
While it may have taken more the four minutes to make the song, there's no way in hell that it took four million minutes. You can't claim four million minutes of labor unless you actually did the four million minutes.
As has been pointed out before, most of the money that Spotify makes goes to paying royalties.
"Also keep in mind that Spotify does very little to expose an artist"
A recent bitch fest about Spotify is users being allowed to make and share playlists. They provide a platform for users to share the music they like with others. Word of mouth is a vary powerful thing that doesn't cost a damn thing (except to the people who built the platform). Spotify also has a vested interest in getting more and more people to use their service. That means showing potential paying customers what they can get out of the service.
Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?
You live in a world so separated from reality that you could probably make millions of dollars selling the technology you use to break the barrier between dimensions.
We aren't talking about people taking something for nothing, we're talking about copyright owners (we're not talking about artists at this point) agreeing to get payed a set amount and then bitching when they get exactly what they agreed upon.
It blows my mind that all these arguments against Spotify are completely counter to what is actually happening.
Google Music is $10 a month and I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, and as often as I want. Isn't that exactly how Spotify works?
Last month I got offered a Youtube partnership with a company called Fullscreen. They offered a deal where I could cover over 100,000 songs and still get most of the money from the advertisements. How much money could the artist, or for that matter the studio, possibly get from what's left over?
Why would the studio make these deals of Spotify is such a horrible thing?
One, while you can create a self signed SSL key, in a company with customers, this is not something you want to do. Giant error messages constantly pop up warning you that the certificate is self signed and cannot be trusted.
Two, that is how they were working. If you go back threw the Techdirt history, you'll see the article about Lavabit giving the SSL key in tiny, unreadable 4 point font. The big argument about why being forced to give out the key was a bad thing is that it would give the government complete access to all accounts on Lavabit.
This wasn't the situation described where a subpoena comes in and someone at the company decrypts the data and only that data. This was the government trying to get the ability to decrypt all the data going in and out of the system whenever it wanted without anyone at Lavabit knowing.
I would assume that the FBI are only using the system for high security areas or on people they're already watching. A 5% success rate would just cost far too much if they tried to do this for everybody.
How did I get a 5% success rate, you ask? It's all in how you fiddle with the numbers. Let me walk you threw it.
There are 316,000,000 people living in the United States. 20% falsely identified is 15,800,000. I don't know how many people the FBI are looking for, but let's assume a generous 1,000,000 people. That's 850,000 people correctly identified. 850,000 people out of 15,800,000 flags. That's 5.379%.
This does assume a lot of things. One, I really don't think the FBI is looking for a million people let alone has pictures of all of them clear enough to feed into the software. Two, this assumes that every single person only ever walks past one camera. The success rate drops dramatically as people walk past more cameras.
It would cost far too much money to use a system that in the end probably has a success rate lower then 1%.