Where this could cross over to a net neutrality issue is if Comcast is threatening to disallow exclusively Netflix traffic in it's negotiations on a commercial peering agreement. If that's the case it's headed down that slippery slope of charging for specific traffic. If Comcast can establish that principal it makes it much easier to charge backbone providers for specific traffic that may compete with Comcast's other business offerings. The backbone operators would be forced to pass those additional costs on to the traffic originators. Without a lot more details of the negotiations and agreements it's difficult to say one way or the other if this is a step onto that slippery slope but it definitely has that potential.
Make all the politicians sign non-competes as a condition of serving in the government. They cannot work in any industry or job directly or indirectly related to government operations or any job or industry related to any work they were involved in while in government service (including legislation) for a minimum of 5 years after they leave government service.
Hate to reply to my own post but it appears they're also finding hoards of other articles that were stolen by Cook's Source from a number of other sources.
Ummm...this didn't just harm their reputation, it pretty much demolished it. Someone published a list of Cook's Source's advertisers and they're getting bombarded. Some have already stated they're pulling their ads and I'm guessing all will eventually. At least one small business that had ads there said they were pulling the ads despite having prepaid for several months and were going to have to eat the cost.
This has been picked up on Consumerist and Slashdot. They better pray the goons at 4Chan don't pick up on it.
The way I see this is that it'll help the large companies without helping smaller companies. It'll likely make it cheaper to invalidate a patent than it currently is thus driving down the extortion charges from questionable patent holders. But the bigger companies can afford the hit. The problem is, with a smaller company the diversion of focus and resources to fighting any patent fight is often fatal in the earlier stages. Thus the large companies will be able to better fend off patent attacks while still being able to attack smaller nimbler competitors that out innovate the bigger companies.
I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here. They're not subverting the laws. They're subverting freedom of speech, expression and privacy that once were the fundamental foundation of Western governments. There is no democracy without free speech. Once information is controlled so are the minds of the masses.
They're is actually a law being considered in the Senate of the United States that allows censorship of speech based solely on opposition to certain corporate interests. And it has a large nonpartisan support base. That should scare the s**t out of everyone who actually likes having a modicum of freedom. This isn't the slippery slope. It's kicking the rock hold the avalanche back.
Hell, in the US in the past it was difficult to impose censorship even during war when a great many lives were at stake. Now it's being imposed in the name of a few corporate interests who's business is being undermined by technological advances.
I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here. They're not subverting the laws. They're subverting freedom of speech, expression and privacy that once were the fundamental foundation of Western governments. There is no democracy without free speech. Once information is controlled so are the minds of the masses.
They're is actually a law being considered in the Senate of the United States that allows censorship of speech based solely on opposition to certain corporate interests. And it has a large nonpartisan support base. That should scare the s**t out of everyone who actually likes having a modicum of freedom. This isn't the slippery slope. It's kicking the rock hold the avalanche back.
Hell, in the US in the past it was difficult to impose censorship even during war when a great many lives were at stake. Now it's being imposed in the name of a few corporate interests who's business is being undermined by technological advances.
The report by Bob is opinion and copyrightable. ...what opinions Bob put in that report is not copyrightable.
That makes no sense. If what he put in the report isn't copyrightable what about the report is copyrightable? The paper he wrote it on? You say the opinions are copyrightable then in the next sentence they aren't copyrightable.
Yup simple, by the same fallacious logic the RIAA/MPAA members use in all there dealings on IP concerns.
I'd focus the essay on how out of touch the vast majority of judges are with modern technology and how it's used for social interaction in the modern world.
Intent of what exactly? Intent of serendipitously saving information that people were openly broadcasting over the radio? This has got to be one of the most ridiculous witch hunts in a while. And it's propagated by people like you claiming to understand and using words like "intent" to sound all legal and nefarious to scare people who have an even less understanding.
If I were writing the software I would have written it to store potentially useful data also by default as long as it cause no issues with the primary function of the software. It never hurts to have too much data while not having enough is unfixable. If you don't need it you throw it away.
The data was placed out there, by the owner of the data, publicly available to anyone with a wireless network card. The only way intent is relevant from criminal perspective is if the intent of the data capture was to use it for illegal purposes. Good luck with that.
This is like suing Google because someone found they could read the note they put on their front door in the picture Google took (I shouldn't mention it. It'll be the headline tomorrow). You can't arrest someone for reading a note you put on your door where anyone can read it even if you're stupid enough to put your credit card number or SSN on it. Now if someone uses it illegally it's a bit different. The key is that the collection of the information was in no way an issue either criminally or from a tort perspective if you placed it out in public. Especially in the case of someone driving by randomly collecting it. To claim otherwise shows a clear ignorance of what happened. This explains the political grandstanding about it.
Just read the next story about reporting chess moves being a copyright violation. That's proof enough for me right there. Or at least making lawyers dumber.
Everything I've read about this (except this article which doesn't get into details) stated that the data was encrypted but using the old WEP encryption. By 2007 this was easily crackable using off the shelf tools.
So are you forbidden from remodeling by the covenant. After all if you make changes to the hose it no longer embodies the developers ideas and therefore would qualify for a separate copyright.
No actually that's a derivative work and you have to pay them everytime you make a change...along with everytime you have company over. Cause then it's a performance of there work sharing it with other people.
lol, only as long as they take on liability and maintenance on said items as well.
So book and song writers and movie makers have liability and maintenance responsibility for the products they sell us? So if a book or movie has factual errors they should fix it and ship me another copy for free? Song writers and performers should have to ensure my 8 tracks are still playable on my new iPod? Cause those 8 tracks I bought 40 years ago are completely useless now.
If the concrete has lumps in it that's just part of the creative process. Oh and you're only allowed to look at the parts of the house I want you to see before you buy it. No sampling allowed. That's illegal. And if part of it falls down, well that's just too bad for you. You just need to repurchase that part of the house so you can actually use it again.
Shouldn't the architect get a cut too? Designing a house is creative work. And the engineers who designed the windows...and the doors. And the guys who poured the concrete. There's a certain amount of creativity in how you mix, smooth and level concrete. And the carpet guys. Figuring out the cuts and seeming and edging carpet is creative work. What about the guys who created the software used by the all of the above. Creating software most assuredly is a creative process.
Hmmm...this is never gonna end. Everyone should get paid anytime anything get sold.
I think they have a twisted value system if think art is the only thing one can create that's worth something. I create stuff that's worth something every day. I dare say that what I create is worth far more than a book or music since it actually adds to the overall society in an actual material way, actually improving the tangible aspects of society. A ditch digger generally is digging ditches that improve infrastructure adding to the ability of everyone in society to make a better life for themselves. They just don't have specialized laws giving them a ridicules level of control over the ditch they created such that they and their offspring get paid for 100 years every time anyone happens to use the ditch they created.
Cookies no longer required to track you
The latest craze in tracking: fingerprinting.
Could cross into net neutrality
Where this could cross over to a net neutrality issue is if Comcast is threatening to disallow exclusively Netflix traffic in it's negotiations on a commercial peering agreement. If that's the case it's headed down that slippery slope of charging for specific traffic. If Comcast can establish that principal it makes it much easier to charge backbone providers for specific traffic that may compete with Comcast's other business offerings. The backbone operators would be forced to pass those additional costs on to the traffic originators. Without a lot more details of the negotiations and agreements it's difficult to say one way or the other if this is a step onto that slippery slope but it definitely has that potential.
Make all politicians sign non-competes
Make all the politicians sign non-competes as a condition of serving in the government. They cannot work in any industry or job directly or indirectly related to government operations or any job or industry related to any work they were involved in while in government service (including legislation) for a minimum of 5 years after they leave government service.
Re: Advertisers pulling out
Hate to reply to my own post but it appears they're also finding hoards of other articles that were stolen by Cook's Source from a number of other sources.
Advertisers pulling out
Ummm...this didn't just harm their reputation, it pretty much demolished it. Someone published a list of Cook's Source's advertisers and they're getting bombarded. Some have already stated they're pulling their ads and I'm guessing all will eventually. At least one small business that had ads there said they were pulling the ads despite having prepaid for several months and were going to have to eat the cost.
This has been picked up on Consumerist and Slashdot. They better pray the goons at 4Chan don't pick up on it.
It'll help large companies
The way I see this is that it'll help the large companies without helping smaller companies. It'll likely make it cheaper to invalidate a patent than it currently is thus driving down the extortion charges from questionable patent holders. But the bigger companies can afford the hit. The problem is, with a smaller company the diversion of focus and resources to fighting any patent fight is often fatal in the earlier stages. Thus the large companies will be able to better fend off patent attacks while still being able to attack smaller nimbler competitors that out innovate the bigger companies.
(untitled comment)
I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here. They're not subverting the laws. They're subverting freedom of speech, expression and privacy that once were the fundamental foundation of Western governments. There is no democracy without free speech. Once information is controlled so are the minds of the masses.
They're is actually a law being considered in the Senate of the United States that allows censorship of speech based solely on opposition to certain corporate interests. And it has a large nonpartisan support base. That should scare the s**t out of everyone who actually likes having a modicum of freedom. This isn't the slippery slope. It's kicking the rock hold the avalanche back.
Hell, in the US in the past it was difficult to impose censorship even during war when a great many lives were at stake. Now it's being imposed in the name of a few corporate interests who's business is being undermined by technological advances.
(untitled comment)
I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here. They're not subverting the laws. They're subverting freedom of speech, expression and privacy that once were the fundamental foundation of Western governments. There is no democracy without free speech. Once information is controlled so are the minds of the masses.
They're is actually a law being considered in the Senate of the United States that allows censorship of speech based solely on opposition to certain corporate interests. And it has a large nonpartisan support base. That should scare the s**t out of everyone who actually likes having a modicum of freedom. This isn't the slippery slope. It's kicking the rock hold the avalanche back.
Hell, in the US in the past it was difficult to impose censorship even during war when a great many lives were at stake. Now it's being imposed in the name of a few corporate interests who's business is being undermined by technological advances.
(untitled comment)
Techdirt will be on the list about 10 minutes after the bill passes.
Re: Opinions vs. facts.
That makes no sense. If what he put in the report isn't copyrightable what about the report is copyrightable? The paper he wrote it on? You say the opinions are copyrightable then in the next sentence they aren't copyrightable.
Yup simple, by the same fallacious logic the RIAA/MPAA members use in all there dealings on IP concerns.
Focus of the Essay
I'd focus the essay on how out of touch the vast majority of judges are with modern technology and how it's used for social interaction in the modern world.
Intent of what exactly?
Intent of what exactly? Intent of serendipitously saving information that people were openly broadcasting over the radio? This has got to be one of the most ridiculous witch hunts in a while. And it's propagated by people like you claiming to understand and using words like "intent" to sound all legal and nefarious to scare people who have an even less understanding.
If I were writing the software I would have written it to store potentially useful data also by default as long as it cause no issues with the primary function of the software. It never hurts to have too much data while not having enough is unfixable. If you don't need it you throw it away.
The data was placed out there, by the owner of the data, publicly available to anyone with a wireless network card. The only way intent is relevant from criminal perspective is if the intent of the data capture was to use it for illegal purposes. Good luck with that.
This is like suing Google because someone found they could read the note they put on their front door in the picture Google took (I shouldn't mention it. It'll be the headline tomorrow). You can't arrest someone for reading a note you put on your door where anyone can read it even if you're stupid enough to put your credit card number or SSN on it. Now if someone uses it illegally it's a bit different. The key is that the collection of the information was in no way an issue either criminally or from a tort perspective if you placed it out in public. Especially in the case of someone driving by randomly collecting it. To claim otherwise shows a clear ignorance of what happened. This explains the political grandstanding about it.
Re: Proof the internet makes people dumber
Make that the next 2 stories.
Proof the internet makes people dumber
Just read the next story about reporting chess moves being a copyright violation. That's proof enough for me right there. Or at least making lawyers dumber.
Data was encrypted
Everything I've read about this (except this article which doesn't get into details) stated that the data was encrypted but using the old WEP encryption. By 2007 this was easily crackable using off the shelf tools.
Re:
No actually that's a derivative work and you have to pay them everytime you make a change...along with everytime you have company over. Cause then it's a performance of there work sharing it with other people.
Re: Re: What about the Architect
So book and song writers and movie makers have liability and maintenance responsibility for the products they sell us? So if a book or movie has factual errors they should fix it and ship me another copy for free? Song writers and performers should have to ensure my 8 tracks are still playable on my new iPod? Cause those 8 tracks I bought 40 years ago are completely useless now.
If the concrete has lumps in it that's just part of the creative process. Oh and you're only allowed to look at the parts of the house I want you to see before you buy it. No sampling allowed. That's illegal. And if part of it falls down, well that's just too bad for you. You just need to repurchase that part of the house so you can actually use it again.
See there's all these special laws...
What about the Architect
Shouldn't the architect get a cut too? Designing a house is creative work. And the engineers who designed the windows...and the doors. And the guys who poured the concrete. There's a certain amount of creativity in how you mix, smooth and level concrete. And the carpet guys. Figuring out the cuts and seeming and edging carpet is creative work. What about the guys who created the software used by the all of the above. Creating software most assuredly is a creative process.
Hmmm...this is never gonna end. Everyone should get paid anytime anything get sold.
Twisted Value System
I think they have a twisted value system if think art is the only thing one can create that's worth something. I create stuff that's worth something every day. I dare say that what I create is worth far more than a book or music since it actually adds to the overall society in an actual material way, actually improving the tangible aspects of society. A ditch digger generally is digging ditches that improve infrastructure adding to the ability of everyone in society to make a better life for themselves. They just don't have specialized laws giving them a ridicules level of control over the ditch they created such that they and their offspring get paid for 100 years every time anyone happens to use the ditch they created.