I've put some thought into this very thing, and while I personally come down on the side of this being entrapment, I think the nugget at the core of these operations is something like:
"If this person has the will to be a terrorist, but lacks the means, they are still a terrorist."
So, by that logic, they need to identify the people who might have the will, then provide the means as a test, and do it before a real terror financier comes around.
I find this to be complete and utter horseshit of course, but I think that's the core of how these operations will be defended by those who believe in them.
Essentially they are turning terrorism into a crime of opportunity by taking away all the logistical complexities.
How exactly would that help in this case? I really don't see it. The owner of the copyright doesn't seem to be in question by anyone except some (presumably) low-level phone goon who is probably used to dealing with folks who are beholden to labels and really don't get how the whole royalties thing works for them, hence the assumption that Zoe is confused.
While requiring copyright registration _might_ resolve some copyright issues, it will almost certainly create more problems than it would fix due to the tremendous administrative overhead it would introduce.
When it comes to copyright law, how the rights are granted are just about the only area I think we've gotten right.
It makes me proud to be an Oregonian that so often Wyden and Defazio seem to be the only legislators making a stand against stupid crap like this. I'll be surprised if it makes a difference, they seem to get ignored or steamrolled more often than not, but at least they seem to be trying.
It won't prevent them from turning up, but it will prevent them from contacting their friends who are only interested in being there if the scene starts getting out of hand. Once those people show up, the trend towards things getting totally fscked will accelerate.
Absolutely, and those hooligans make up the majority of the people out there. Odds are that a similar make up of hooligans vs. legitimate protesters would have shown up to the station.
In fact, since the whole thing didn't end up materializing, it lends credence to the idea that the organizers weren't interested in social change. Once they heard there was a response ready and waiting, they decided not to show up. It's no fun using crappy situation as cover for being a self-absorbed douche who likes to cause people grief if you get arrested for it. If you really are trying to draw attention to an issue to affect a positive change, a police presence (assuming the police mind their Ps&Qs as well) is actually a GOOD thing since it almost guarantees media coverage.
OK, so I rarely am on the opposing side of articles / comments here, but this time it looks like i am.
It's possible (even likely, and the rest of my opinion is based heavily on that assumption)that BART owns the equipment that is making cell phone communication possible on the subway. They are well within their rights to shut that gear down for whatever reason they like. Although BART (like many transit authorities) is loosely tied to the government, they aren't _really_ a government organization, so this isn't "state censorship" as suggested by others above. Even if they are a bona-fide government org, this "censorship" would be easy to avoid, make your calls from outside...
In any case, they spend money (yes, a lot of money, DAS systems are really expensive, and this is probably a DAS) to provide that service as a convenience for their riders. If they have reason to believe that the availability of that service is going to make a potentially unsafe situation worse, disabling it temporarily makes sense, for a multitude of reasons.
This isn't a case of shutting down service for huge numbers of people in large geographic areas (like in the UK), it's shutting it down for people in that particular subway station, where they wouldn't have service ANYWAY unless BART hadn't taken the extra effort to make it available.
Granted, BART does have a sworn police service, which blurs the lines a bit, but this still isn't really comparable to the UK situation, the scope of it just doesn't fit. If they have prior knowledge of an event that is likely to jeopardize the safety of innocent bystanders, they are not only within their rights to take reasonable steps to counter it, they have a responsibility to do so. Based (solely) on the linked article, it sounds like the steps they took were reasonable. Given the close quarters of a subway station and the number of people involved, and the proximity to trains, there is a high likelihood that a protest there could get ugly fast.
Finally, if we're going to be drawing parallels to the situation in the UK, let's also look at the other side. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the people involved in the riots there seem to have very little interest in creating a positive political change. Based on the coverage I've seen from MANY sources, it looks like they are just using that shooting as an excuse to go out and create some mayhem. A PROTEST is one thing, a RIOT is something else entirely. Given that context, it seems that the intent of the people promoting the protests at the BART station COULD HAVE BEEN similar.
That is a hilarious threat letter. The funniest part though is towards the end when he starts confusing defamation with libel. I'm not even a lawyer and I know the difference between the two...
That may be the case, but if so, then the onus of responsibility should lie with DC to set the embed restrictions correctly. And if they change their minds about the embedding, turn it off, rather than sending threats to people who take advantage of the functionality they are allowing.
@Hephaestus - Oddds are nothing would happen to them until they were challenged by someone in court, then they could potentially be deemed invalid at that point. It's also possible (though vanishingly unlikely) that at some point the USPTO could just declare all software patents invalid.
My wife and I have been cellphone only for 13 years. A few years after making that switch I remember the extra hoops we had to go through when opening a bank account because the bank wouldn't accept a cell phone as a contact number. Actually had logic in their account setup program that flagged cell numbers and refused to let them through. Ended up having to get a manager involved, put in a bogus phone number to setup the account and then immediately change it to the right number because the other software didn't have that test in it. Crazy...
Anyway!
As I approach the possibility of becoming a Daddy, I've been wondering about how that will work if/when little Johnnie/Janie's friends want to get a hold of them. Do current cell-only parents always act as proxies, or...? I can see the value in having a number that would reach anyone in the house. Seems like a good use for something like GrandCentral, or Whatever google is calling it now.
I wonder how this would effect GMO crops currently on the market. Particularly if this might open the door to recourse for the farmers whose crops got contaminated by neighboring use of "roundup ready" crops and were subsequently sued into oblivion by Monsanto.
I'm not sure what is more absurd, the patent, or the idea that this enough of a problem that it actually needs a solution. What is so magical about hotdogs that they are more likely to choke a kid than any other solid food? Really though, hotdogs are barely food in first place and people should be more concerned about the health problems of successfully ingesting them rather than the problems associated with not...
The thing that I found most interesting / disheartening / appalling is the apparent attitude that this sort of thing is business as usual within Warner. I don't see how musicians have allowed this kind of thing to go on. Are they really that afraid of the labels?
It's things like this that keep me from even trying to realize the ideas I have for interesting tech outside the scope of my normal work. The IP law is so broken, and playing field so hostile, it's not worth the effort to even try. No matter what I did I would be at substantial risk of getting sued by some random patent holder, and I just don't have the resources to fight those battles regardless of their merits. I'd imagine there are a lot of would-be innovators out there in a similar situation.
So, I just went into my download history last night and randomly picked a song to re-download and it let me do it without complaint. Didn't use a download credit or anything. I'm as pissed about the changes they have made as anyone. When my current plan expires in October I will be losing a _ton_ of value, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this particular change myself... Just Sayin'
Speaking as a network engineer, I have to say that this is a bad idea on a number of levels. I basically "me too" all the negative points raised above. I want to bring extra attention to the points about authenticity though. Something like this would multiply the problem with scams online a thousand fold. Arbitrary TLDs would introduce unimaginable problems with little or no actual benefit.
The thing that irritates me is that they are forcing people who have the old plans onto the new plans. The last time they changed, as I recall, since I kept my annual plan current, I was grandfathered in. Now when my annual plan expires in October, I don't have the option to stick with what I have. Also, I couldn't care less about the Sony catalog. If they had just made the catalogs of some of the labels they already carry more complete (Ninja Tune comes to mind right away) it would have been a lot more interesting to me. For the last 3 years eMusic has been a given for me, but when it comes time to re-up in October, I'm going to have to seriously consider whether or not it's worth it anymore.
Your 19 track argument is wrong. They also introduced "album pricing". If an album has more than 12 tracks, you are charged 12 credits to get the whole thing, regardless of how many tracks it has.
Possible Rationale
I've put some thought into this very thing, and while I personally come down on the side of this being entrapment, I think the nugget at the core of these operations is something like:
"If this person has the will to be a terrorist, but lacks the means, they are still a terrorist."
So, by that logic, they need to identify the people who might have the will, then provide the means as a test, and do it before a real terror financier comes around.
I find this to be complete and utter horseshit of course, but I think that's the core of how these operations will be defended by those who believe in them.
Essentially they are turning terrorism into a crime of opportunity by taking away all the logistical complexities.
Re:
How exactly would that help in this case? I really don't see it. The owner of the copyright doesn't seem to be in question by anyone except some (presumably) low-level phone goon who is probably used to dealing with folks who are beholden to labels and really don't get how the whole royalties thing works for them, hence the assumption that Zoe is confused.
While requiring copyright registration _might_ resolve some copyright issues, it will almost certainly create more problems than it would fix due to the tremendous administrative overhead it would introduce.
When it comes to copyright law, how the rights are granted are just about the only area I think we've gotten right.
Proud, but skeptical
It makes me proud to be an Oregonian that so often Wyden and Defazio seem to be the only legislators making a stand against stupid crap like this. I'll be surprised if it makes a difference, they seem to get ignored or steamrolled more often than not, but at least they seem to be trying.
Re: This is wrong
It won't prevent them from turning up, but it will prevent them from contacting their friends who are only interested in being there if the scene starts getting out of hand. Once those people show up, the trend towards things getting totally fscked will accelerate.
Re: Re: Well, yes and no...
Absolutely, and those hooligans make up the majority of the people out there. Odds are that a similar make up of hooligans vs. legitimate protesters would have shown up to the station.
In fact, since the whole thing didn't end up materializing, it lends credence to the idea that the organizers weren't interested in social change. Once they heard there was a response ready and waiting, they decided not to show up. It's no fun using crappy situation as cover for being a self-absorbed douche who likes to cause people grief if you get arrested for it. If you really are trying to draw attention to an issue to affect a positive change, a police presence (assuming the police mind their Ps&Qs as well) is actually a GOOD thing since it almost guarantees media coverage.
Well, yes and no...
OK, so I rarely am on the opposing side of articles / comments here, but this time it looks like i am.
It's possible (even likely, and the rest of my opinion is based heavily on that assumption)that BART owns the equipment that is making cell phone communication possible on the subway. They are well within their rights to shut that gear down for whatever reason they like. Although BART (like many transit authorities) is loosely tied to the government, they aren't _really_ a government organization, so this isn't "state censorship" as suggested by others above. Even if they are a bona-fide government org, this "censorship" would be easy to avoid, make your calls from outside...
In any case, they spend money (yes, a lot of money, DAS systems are really expensive, and this is probably a DAS) to provide that service as a convenience for their riders. If they have reason to believe that the availability of that service is going to make a potentially unsafe situation worse, disabling it temporarily makes sense, for a multitude of reasons.
This isn't a case of shutting down service for huge numbers of people in large geographic areas (like in the UK), it's shutting it down for people in that particular subway station, where they wouldn't have service ANYWAY unless BART hadn't taken the extra effort to make it available.
Granted, BART does have a sworn police service, which blurs the lines a bit, but this still isn't really comparable to the UK situation, the scope of it just doesn't fit. If they have prior knowledge of an event that is likely to jeopardize the safety of innocent bystanders, they are not only within their rights to take reasonable steps to counter it, they have a responsibility to do so. Based (solely) on the linked article, it sounds like the steps they took were reasonable. Given the close quarters of a subway station and the number of people involved, and the proximity to trains, there is a high likelihood that a protest there could get ugly fast.
Finally, if we're going to be drawing parallels to the situation in the UK, let's also look at the other side. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the people involved in the riots there seem to have very little interest in creating a positive political change. Based on the coverage I've seen from MANY sources, it looks like they are just using that shooting as an excuse to go out and create some mayhem. A PROTEST is one thing, a RIOT is something else entirely. Given that context, it seems that the intent of the people promoting the protests at the BART station COULD HAVE BEEN similar.
Re: Re: Hilarious
do'h you're right, I was thinking of libel vs slander. Whee! Good thing I'm not a lawyer! :D
Hilarious
That is a hilarious threat letter. The funniest part though is towards the end when he starts confusing defamation with libel. I'm not even a lawyer and I know the difference between the two...
Re:
That may be the case, but if so, then the onus of responsibility should lie with DC to set the embed restrictions correctly. And if they change their minds about the embedding, turn it off, rather than sending threats to people who take advantage of the functionality they are allowing.
@Hephaestus - Oddds are nothing would happen to them until they were challenged by someone in court, then they could potentially be deemed invalid at that point. It's also possible (though vanishingly unlikely) that at some point the USPTO could just declare all software patents invalid.
My wife and I have been cellphone only for 13 years. A few years after making that switch I remember the extra hoops we had to go through when opening a bank account because the bank wouldn't accept a cell phone as a contact number. Actually had logic in their account setup program that flagged cell numbers and refused to let them through. Ended up having to get a manager involved, put in a bogus phone number to setup the account and then immediately change it to the right number because the other software didn't have that test in it. Crazy...
Anyway!
As I approach the possibility of becoming a Daddy, I've been wondering about how that will work if/when little Johnnie/Janie's friends want to get a hold of them. Do current cell-only parents always act as proxies, or...? I can see the value in having a number that would reach anyone in the house. Seems like a good use for something like GrandCentral, or Whatever google is calling it now.
We are the "do-over" society
"Sometimes you just have to let those who made a mistake take responsibility for their mistakes."
Every hates "big government" and "socialism" until it's their ass that needs saving. I say let them swing in the breeze...
I wonder how this would effect GMO crops currently on the market. Particularly if this might open the door to recourse for the farmers whose crops got contaminated by neighboring use of "roundup ready" crops and were subsequently sued into oblivion by Monsanto.
I hope it goes poorly for Monsanto.
Seriously?
I'm not sure what is more absurd, the patent, or the idea that this enough of a problem that it actually needs a solution. What is so magical about hotdogs that they are more likely to choke a kid than any other solid food? Really though, hotdogs are barely food in first place and people should be more concerned about the health problems of successfully ingesting them rather than the problems associated with not...
The thing that I found most interesting / disheartening / appalling is the apparent attitude that this sort of thing is business as usual within Warner. I don't see how musicians have allowed this kind of thing to go on. Are they really that afraid of the labels?
Sad Indeed
It's things like this that keep me from even trying to realize the ideas I have for interesting tech outside the scope of my normal work. The IP law is so broken, and playing field so hostile, it's not worth the effort to even try. No matter what I did I would be at substantial risk of getting sued by some random patent holder, and I just don't have the resources to fight those battles regardless of their merits. I'd imagine there are a lot of would-be innovators out there in a similar situation.
Redownload
So, I just went into my download history last night and randomly picked a song to re-download and it let me do it without complaint. Didn't use a download credit or anything. I'm as pissed about the changes they have made as anyone. When my current plan expires in October I will be losing a _ton_ of value, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this particular change myself... Just Sayin'
No friggin way
Speaking as a network engineer, I have to say that this is a bad idea on a number of levels. I basically "me too" all the negative points raised above. I want to bring extra attention to the points about authenticity though. Something like this would multiply the problem with scams online a thousand fold. Arbitrary TLDs would introduce unimaginable problems with little or no actual benefit.
No Grandfathered plans
The thing that irritates me is that they are forcing people who have the old plans onto the new plans. The last time they changed, as I recall, since I kept my annual plan current, I was grandfathered in. Now when my annual plan expires in October, I don't have the option to stick with what I have. Also, I couldn't care less about the Sony catalog. If they had just made the catalogs of some of the labels they already carry more complete (Ninja Tune comes to mind right away) it would have been a lot more interesting to me. For the last 3 years eMusic has been a given for me, but when it comes time to re-up in October, I'm going to have to seriously consider whether or not it's worth it anymore.
Re: eMusic
Your 19 track argument is wrong. They also introduced "album pricing". If an album has more than 12 tracks, you are charged 12 credits to get the whole thing, regardless of how many tracks it has.