If circumvention isn't illegal anymore, could Netflix decrypt DVDs and stream without the ridiculous royalties? ala making it much more like the DVD rental side. Just paying the royalty on a DVD and reusing it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's no such thing as "privacy" OR "security"
How do you do that?
A single computer can use a single VPN at a time, you are correct. However, if you get a remote seedbox and route your traffic over the VPN to that seedbox and then from that seedbox you use a separate VPN to connect to yet another seedbox using a 3rd VPN you have your defense in depth.
Not trivial in setup or cost, but if you truly want defense in depth that shouldn't be a concern.
pixelpusher220 (profile), Mar 27th, 2013 @ 11:02am
Re: Re:
And to back up your point...the RFID chips being put in Credit Cards are *exactly* to limit the liability of the card issuer - not the user.
They can then say, well your card was clearly there because we read the RFID chip. Completely ignoring that those things can be cloned.
It ain't for you, it's for them, just like what you say about locked wifi. Though I'd disagree about the 'if they hacked in its your fault' argument. You'd need to prove it, but if you locked your doors it's good faith you tried to stop it.
pixelpusher220 (profile), Mar 27th, 2013 @ 10:59am
Re: Re:
To use the obligatory car analogy:
If your car was seen being the get away car from a bank robbery, their going to come talk to you because, well, you're responsible for your car.
As the person who opened the ISP account, you're responsible for it's use. Perhaps not 'liable', but responsible.
Obviously physical vs digital is a poor comparison, but if you left your wifi open and then someone started using 'all' your bandwidth...you'd pretty quickly decide that there was 'harm' being done to you...just like if someone stole your car and you were deprived the use of it.
The 'connection' is still a physical thing.
I'm in favor of open wifi, but it comes with responsibility.
It blocks connections from sites I did not choose to connect to, i.e. the ad sites. If TechDirt wants to invest in hosting ads themselves, I'll suffer through those (and hopefully actually find them interesting), but I'm under no obligation to have content delivered to me from sites I did not choose to view.
More importantly, fingerprints *can* be compelled by law enforcement. i.e. if you encrypt your laptop via the fingerprint reader...they can make you decrypt it.
They can't directly compel you to give up a password, but a fingerprint is already allowed.
Similar to how using a lock with a key opens you up to being compelled to provide the key, but if it's a combination you can't be forced to give it up.
pixelpusher220 (profile), Feb 25th, 2013 @ 11:27am
Copyright on spoken words?
"Copyright to the question posed by the third party would belong to that third party unless the person who posed the question"
Uh, how does a spoken question qualify for copyright at all? The 'copyright' is the recording and not the spoken words correct?
If the person asking the question is also the creator of the recording I get that they own the copyright on the 'recording' but not the words spoken themselves. And if there was an agreement to prohibit recordings of said call, then regardless, the recorder does not have the right to post it.
Of course logic and the Streisand Effect aren't usually used together either...
On the post: Florida's Redlight Program Designed To Make Driving More Dangerous By Shortening Yellow Lights
Re: And when there's no cameras...
On the post: More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
Re: Re:
On the post: Bill Introduced To Fix Anti-Circumvention Provision Of DMCA
re: Trade Agreements
On the post: Bill Introduced To Fix Anti-Circumvention Provision Of DMCA
Netflix?
On the post: Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Sues Belgian ISPs In Pursuit Of Its Fantasy 'Piracy License'
Re:
eh, I'd just file an exact counter suit for 3.4 percent cut for the 'rampant commercial success they enable through their networks'
On the post: French Intelligence Agency Forces Wikipedia Volunteer to Delete Article; Re-Instated, It Becomes Most-Read Page On French Wikipedia
Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft Creative Director Defends Always-Online, Insults Customers, Murders Logic...All In One Day!
Your proposal is acceptable
You're right, I'd buy a generator if I wanted to vacuum while the power was out.
So you'll be giving me my own local 'game server' so I can play on those times when my connection is down right?
On the post: Can Commercial VPNs Really Protect Your Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's no such thing as "privacy" OR "security"
A single computer can use a single VPN at a time, you are correct. However, if you get a remote seedbox and route your traffic over the VPN to that seedbox and then from that seedbox you use a separate VPN to connect to yet another seedbox using a 3rd VPN you have your defense in depth.
Not trivial in setup or cost, but if you truly want defense in depth that shouldn't be a concern.
On the post: Florida Homeowner's Association Sues Resident For Critical Blog Comments, Seeks Identity Of Other Commenters
Re: Re: Re: 2 reasons
HOAs aren't bad by design, just in execution as most people aren't willing to pony up and be part of the solution.
That leaves the mini-tyrants as they only people who actually apply for positions and you get what you 'pay' for.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re: Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re: Re: Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
Indeed. You don't, of course, leave the house do you? It's a dangerous risky world out there.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re: Re:
They can then say, well your card was clearly there because we read the RFID chip. Completely ignoring that those things can be cloned.
It ain't for you, it's for them, just like what you say about locked wifi. Though I'd disagree about the 'if they hacked in its your fault' argument. You'd need to prove it, but if you locked your doors it's good faith you tried to stop it.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Re: Re:
If your car was seen being the get away car from a bank robbery, their going to come talk to you because, well, you're responsible for your car.
As the person who opened the ISP account, you're responsible for it's use. Perhaps not 'liable', but responsible.
Obviously physical vs digital is a poor comparison, but if you left your wifi open and then someone started using 'all' your bandwidth...you'd pretty quickly decide that there was 'harm' being done to you...just like if someone stole your car and you were deprived the use of it.
The 'connection' is still a physical thing.
I'm in favor of open wifi, but it comes with responsibility.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
Not quite.
So have locked safe that anyone can copy and attack locally at their location?
Encryption is important, but not leaving your front door open is the first step to security; and yes not with WEP but other more secure protocols.
On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store
Re: ABP screwed up
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Little Devices That Help You Out
Re: Re.: myIDkey...
They can't directly compel you to give up a password, but a fingerprint is already allowed.
Similar to how using a lock with a key opens you up to being compelled to provide the key, but if it's a combination you can't be forced to give it up.
On the post: Shocker: Court Says National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Bans Them
Re:
On the post: NJ Gubenatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against Six Strikes: ISP Shouldn't Decide What You Can Download
Re: Re:
On the post: Company Tries To Delete Recording Of Exec Cursing Analyst During Conference Call Via Copyright Claim
Copyright on spoken words?
Uh, how does a spoken question qualify for copyright at all? The 'copyright' is the recording and not the spoken words correct?
If the person asking the question is also the creator of the recording I get that they own the copyright on the 'recording' but not the words spoken themselves. And if there was an agreement to prohibit recordings of said call, then regardless, the recorder does not have the right to post it.
Of course logic and the Streisand Effect aren't usually used together either...