Josh In CharlotteNC’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the the-two-big-themes dept
If I had to define a theme for Techdirt, it would be something like: "Technology constantly evolves: get it, some don't."
So, first up for my favorites this week are stories about the ones that don't get it:
Working in computer security at a major bank (note, everything I say is my own opinion and should not reflect on my employer, just as the stupid things my employer does should not reflect on me), the top story that caught my eye is how the politicians trying to tell the country how to do computer security have no idea how to do it themselves. A far-reaching computer security bill needs vigorous debate among experts and policymakers, and slow, careful consideration. Having a few elected officials who know nothing about computer security rush it through is not what we need, nor will it make anyone safer.
A decade ago in college, I wrote a paper about the problems of faulty filtering and censorship systems, and the "Scunthorpe" problem, which was already well known at the time. So I was surprised that Facebook, one of the top tech companies today, still can't get it right, and was censoring comments involving a major newspaper simply because of a (defunct) domain name in the story. If we're going to have spam filters, let's not use them to censor news stories or discussions.
How publishers keep making the same mistakes the recording industry did is mind boggling. Basic economics might not be taught in elementary school, but you'd think it would be a requirement for any college degree involving a business major. Yet they keep on insisting on higher pricing (which will mean they sell less), while at the same time increasing their own costs and customer anger by putting in DRM. What this tells me is how intellectual monopoly rights are nothing like real property and we need to stop treating (and calling) them as such. Pop quiz: If you came up with a foolproof way for a manufacturer of a physical good to reduce their manufacturing and distribution costs by 99%, would the price to the customer go up or down?
But all is not lost, there do happen to be people and companies that do get it:
Kickstarter is now the 800-lb gorilla for raising money for just about anything, and it is only getting bigger. From smartwatches, to documentaries, to medium budget video games, if you've got an idea, you can get money to try to make it happen. How soon before we see studio budget movies and video games, or a soon-to-be-major tech company get Kickstarted? I'm thrilled to see this growth, as it shows that people are willing to pay for things and don't want it all free. And even when they can get something free, they'll still pay to support it. My favorite project so far: over a million dollars was raised to reprint books of a free webcomic, Order of the Stick.
Next up we've got a guide on how to beat a patent troll from Drew Curtis. In simple terms, make it so the troll winning is much more trouble than they could ever get paid to be worth it. Not exactly a new strategy, as we've seen it work years ago, but it is always good to have refresher courses.
And finally, some good news in politics from two stories: some politicians understand issues regarding the internet, while the public is becoming engaged and demanding "life, liberty, and blazing broadband." And from Austria, where a Pirate Party candidate won a local seat. These two stories should remind those of us in the US that our votes really do matter, and we have an election coming up in about six months. So don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't get it, and don't waste your vote on the "least bad" major candidate. Vote for someone who respresents your values, even if you have to write them in. That will really start scaring those politicians and their whole parties.


Re:
There are legitimate reasons for reducing timings on yellow lights in very heavily congested areas. Under some circumstances increasing timing by half a second can cause gridlock and other congestion problems. Reducing timing can sometimes resolve traffic problems.
Those may be reasons, but I'm gonna disagree with the "legitimate" part. Removing all speed limits everywhere would also help some commuters stuck in traffic to have a shorter commute time, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
There are better ways to resolve congestion - more lanes, rerouting roads, better alternate routes, adding and encouraging mass transit options, and plenty of others. Those solutions are far more expensive, so lowering a few yellow light times might get some people re-elected on the cheap, but it makes the roads less safe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone fond of saying others run away from reasonable debates, you haven't answered me above^. Of course, that was about hypocrisy, so it's kind of fitting.
You've espoused your support of six strikes for copyright infringement. Would you be in favor of a similar strikes system regarding DMCA notices? Something that included assumption of guilt, limited appeals routes, and little oversight or public scrutiny?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
Nice waffling. You should be a lawyer. I also notice you've moved the goalposts from "they should be punished" to "you can't prove they knew it was wrong" and therefore can't be punished.
We see "bad faith" notices all the time that are not punished. Can you name any case other than Diebold (which is the only one this not-a-law-student can name)? I don't see you advocating for penalties to be enforced on the thousands that are sent and you disagree any time Techdirt decides to highlight a few.
Anyone setting up a system that automates the sending of notices on the basis of keywords has to know that there will be false positives. So, under the same legal theory that holds the creator of a website liable for user submitted infringing content, why wouldn't someone operating such an automated system be operating under de facto bad faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
And if someone sends an improper DMCA notice, they should be penalized, too?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
As always, AJ, you miss the entire point. Right in the article Mike mention it was probably just a paperwork screwup. What it shows is that like so many other organizations that have taken a maximalist approach to copyright enforcement, they are hypocrites. It is complete hypocrisy to hold everyone else to intolerantly high standards of being on the right side of the law and then failing to follow the laws yourself. It is complete hypocrisy to cry "theft" everytime a pirate downloads something while at the same time "stealing" someone else's work for commercial gain yourself. How can you possibly miss such inherent hypocrisy?
Re: Give them credit
Yeah, I'll give them that. They could have secret interpretations of laws like we have in the US.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The contortions you make trying to justify this would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SCOTUS did not rule that agricultural breeding is patented.
It ruled that the process of isolating a patented agricultural product from a group of assorted products and purposefully reproducing it so that you can have more copies of it is infringement.
Those statements are mutually exclusive. SCOTUS ruled that you cannot perform breeding on a living organism that contains patented genes. That is ruling against performing breeding.
There was nothing accidental about Bowman's conduct; he purposefully controlled which seeds were allowed to grow and which ones were not so that he could have a population of patented seeds he could call his own.
I never said it was accidental. Of course he selected for crops that did better. That's exactly what breeding is - selecting for certain traits over others to get the desired result.
You seem to want these words to mean something different because you recognize that this really is crazy, but you can't admit it.
We're not arguing on the facts of this case. I don't dispute what the facts are, or what SCOTUS ruled on. I'm saying the ruling is insane. I'm arguing patents on genes or living organisms are insane. I'm arguing the entire patent system is bat-shit crazy, bonkers, unhinged, nutty as a cargo ship full of fuitcake, insane.
You want this crazy. I don't.
I will not pretend to be stupid. I will not pretend that insanity at this monumental level is a good thing. I'm going to call it out as the utter ridiculousness that it is. I looked at a thesaurus writing this. There aren't enough synonyms for crazy to cover this nonsense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Says who? A book of bronze age myths compiled thousands of years ago by ignorant savages? Even that book doesn't agree with itself - many of those powerful men featured in it had multiple wives, slaves and concubines.
It's nowhere near one and the same.
But it is. You think of them as somehow different and not deserving the same rights you take for granted, just as was done with women and other minorities.
Re: Why not follow private sector's lead?
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.
Re: Re: Re:
So Bowman specifically signed some agreement when he bought the seeds from the grain elevator saying that he wouldn't plant them?
Oh, he didn't... so what's your argument? That no one can ever buy something and use it in a way that the manufacturer or seller didn't intend?
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
they are worried about finding more clients.
You mean someone else to forge the signature of on a shell company document, right? They haven't had any actual clients for years.
Re: Pro-Prenda Sites?
there must be some group of Prenda fans out there
Yet there doesn't seem to be any.
If you can't find someone supporting them, just try to think how far off the track they are. I mean really, its the damn internet and there's no one that thinks they're right.
Sounds familiar
We've been here before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States
Repeating history and failing the same way. Yay America! We're Number 1!
(untitled comment)
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.
(untitled comment)
*facepalm*
Please stop, Mr. Ghoush. You're making us real pirates look bad.
Re: Re:
7 hours would be tame for TVTropes. I last heard from a friend 2 years ago before I sent him a link. I think he's still stuck over there.
Re:
These guys are living in a dangerous area.
You might say that Steele and Livewire are playing with...
high voltage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you surprised?
TV networks aren't the only avenue of speech.
How about Wikileaks?
What about Dajaz1? Rojadirecta?