Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Again, it's copyright not modificationright. They're using laws designed to prevent the illegal act of duplication and commercial distribution, i.e. copyright infringement, and applying them to the completely legal arena of editing or changing my copy.
I usually go back to buying a print of a famous painting. I own this copy. I can paint a mustache on it, change the background, blank it out with white paint, rip the frame off and use it on other art. I can even sell it to someone else. I'm not allowed to duplicate it and sell copies.
That and their "solution" to coffee DRM is to "license" more brands to work with their reviled system. Guys, your patent expired, there's nothing to license. Just stop putting that crap on your machines.
Not that it much matters, Keurig is dead to me at this point. Let that be a lesson to the rest of you.
I get your sentiment with this, but imagine the NSA did spend 5-10 years on it and then announced to the world that they solved golden key encryption. Raise your hand if you'd touch their 'solution' with a ten foot pole.
"as they work towards thwarting the upcoming Cybergeddon."
...which they have created by undermining security at every turn, driven by crippling fear of the unknown. Now maybe they're beginning to realize our national "cyber" defense is a leaking patchwork of hole-filled damns, because they thought holes would make it easier to see the water level.
Yes, the scales are way off for personal vs corporate fines. That's why we're billing mothers $150,000 for sharing an mp3.
Let's get some perspective. Comcast made $6,816,000,000 in 2013; an $800,000 fine is 0.01174% which would translate to $6.09 if you were an American raking in the median $51,915 in 2013. Or you were a poor millionaire at the bottom of the 99% percentile it'd be $61.53 of your annual $525,000. I've had Comcast Bills that are lower...(ba dum tss) And that was just their revenue, we're off by a factor of ten from gross income apples to apples.
Or how about this specific infraction, not 'advertising' reasonable internet-only packages. Every time I looked it was around $20 more for Internet without TV; and I actually looked. It obviously didn't effect all their customers, but again the scale is tremendous. Lets call the overcharge $10 (half my observed $20) a month for three years. If 2,200 customers were over charged $360, this fine actually dinged Comcast $8,000. What are the odds more than .01% of Comcast's 22,000,000 subscribers wanted to buy Naked Internet? You bet you ass Comcast's accountants know, but we never will because they just tossed the watchdogs a nickle to stop looking.
I poked around and my host does provide SNI, which means I can config my sites to resolve over https with a big "THIS SITE IS LYING TO YOU" warning message. I'll have to look into the free certs to get rid of that.
I don't want to make anyone else's communications less secure, but it still seems like using certified mail when I just want to send a "wish you were here" postcard. Postcards are still a thing, right?
What about the sites that aren't businesses? I have around 10 domains I run as basic informational resources, some as placeholders for my nieces and nephews when they come of age. They're served as plaintext because that's what they are, not web 2.0, no interaction, just read what you see. Are my domain costs now going to double because you decided that my publicly available photos need to be transmitted securely?