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?
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.
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.
"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...
Re: And when there's no cameras...
So what you're proving is the timing changes are independent of the cameras...
Re: Re:
And remember, Margaret Thatcher was awesome! (just don't look at her actual policies!)
re: Trade Agreements
Isn't it going to be unconstitutional for Congress to assign the President the power to modify the trade agreements?
Netflix?
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:
"claiming a 3.4 percent cut of Internet subscriber fees as compensation for the rampant piracy they enable through their networks"
eh, I'd just file an exact counter suit for 3.4 percent cut for the 'rampant commercial success they enable through their networks'
Re: Re:
Maybe the DCRI will fly her to France and make her delete 'her' effect?
Your proposal is acceptable
"Sometimes the electricity goes out. I will not purchase a vacuum cleaner"
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?
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.
Re: Re: Re: 2 reasons
Yes they can. Just not retroactively. But all 'new' purchases in the community would be covered by it.
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.
Re: Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
Isn't MAC sniffing/cloning pretty easy?
Re: Re: Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
Whoosh.
Re: @ "Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing."
"Why would you take even a slight risk for the benefit of strangers? "
Indeed. You don't, of course, leave the house do you? It's a dangerous risky world out there.
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.
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.
Not quite.
"Yes, unencrypted data could be exposed, but the better answer is to encrypt your data, such as by using a VPN."
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.
Re: ABP screwed up
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.
Re: Re.: myIDkey...
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.
Re:
Since it's after 5pm on Friday, Sir I raise a drink to you and I raise another to the judge and this ruling
Re: Re:
Yes. And it's worse than that. They were 'sometimes' considered information services and other times utilities.
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...