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.
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.
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.
"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...