Kirk I would be extremely interested in seeing data on this pattern typing security system and the company that is developing it. I argue regularly with my bank over authentication security which I view as not really as good as they seem to think. They seem to believe you mistyping a password three times causing it to shut down the online access is enough security to protect your account. Next they feel that since it is sooooo secure, they only allow 42-bit passwords.
I think this concept is very cool, though I would be interested in seeing the results of this concept being put up against some serious penetration testing by industry experts while undergoing some intense real world testing to ensure it works consistently for its users. Hopefully the outcome being that it remains secure and has the client being able to access their accounts without encountering the system refusing them access. The main problem I see is that with a password, if you type in the wrong one all you have to do to get access is type in the right on. With this, by design, even if you type in the right characters it may still refuse you based on you not typing them in the right pattern. The problem being that you simply may not know what your pattern is.
I would also like to see how it compares with other forms of multi-factor authentication systems. Two ideas I am interested in are RSID keychains (that come with shielding sleeves and a built in USB reader maybe) and USB fobs with an encrypted keyfile with specific software that inhibits copying to protect it, (or perhaps an encrypted keyfile with a rotating password algorithm.)
Number of products produced, nor overhead, should affect the law. It is either one way or the other and the fact that Mr. Masnick is exercising his constitutionally protected right to freely express his opinions in regards to a law he views poorly constructed should not cause him to be regarded as a joke anywhere. In fact I doubt that it does, at least not in policy circles, perhaps in the "people who don't agree with Mike Masnick" circles. Many people have views one way or the other on countless topics and complain to there friends but never really make their views known, these people are the ones that should be regarded as a joke for not doing their civic duty as part of a democracy.
As far as credibility is concerned Mr. Masnick has both a bachelor's and a masters degree, both focused on business, from Cornell University, which is consistently ranked top 15 world wide. It is public knowledge and since his posts as Mike Masnick, rather than as a obsolete football play, we can easily know this with a little research. He also is a CEO of a company that is based upon the very views he has, and it works. We do not know who you are Buck, and in anticipation of you bashing me for saying that, yes you don't know who I am either, but we do know Mike and his credentials.
Also we need to protect artists rights to promote their music independantly and IF THEY WISH TO DO SO, offer their music, THAT THEY CREATED, for free. I have contact with a band who does just that as a promotional thing.
You both raise good points but I think the problem is as follows, more or less.
One side views the other as opposing protection of copyright and supporting piracy where the other side sees a opponent that does not care about free speech and other rights being damaged as long as copyright is not infringed upon. That is a problem. We are fighting the same war and taking casulties and we aren't even on the same battlefield. Its a good way for the world to walk by you and laugh while they do whatever they want, for better or worse.
I think both sides need to sit down and have a talk with clear heads, and listen, that is the important part, the listening. Say look, here is what I am concerned about, and here is why, the other side takes notes and repeats it back to ensure accuracy. Switch and repeat. Once both sides understand each other highlight anything that may be in direct conflict, like I want it to be dark all the time vs I want it to be light all the time. Iron out those kinks rather than fighting over everything.
The sides are not opposed to each other, they just have a different perspective. If I stand beside you and say there is a house over there and you see a tree, we can fight about it or realize you can't see it because the tree is in your way, but both are still there. It is not a perfect analogy but it conveys the same idea, in a nutshell, we both see potential problems and are concerned because we both want to protect peoples rights. Remember the different perspectives? That can work to our advantage in a powerful way. Working together perhaps we can find a way to protect both sets of rights.
You really should log in, lol, I want to know who I am disagreeing with. Either way, I do agree that fear mongering happens too much lately, and too add to that, in too many places.
While the post I am replying too was directed at Masnick I have been thinking lately on what I would do, in part due to my discussions with buck lateral (and Buck Lateral, who I have to assume is just buck not logged in) as well as some ACs, most of which are probably also buck. So to buck, thanks, although I do disagree with you vehemently, I am putting a lot more thought into what I would do versus just being upset over it. It is hard to really develop a good solution without having some opposing opinions to help hone away the weaknesses of your ideas. There are a lot of sides here, not all immediately obvious but all of which may be drastically affected by any attempts to solve this problem, one would be a fool to ignore that. My goal is to gain a more complete understanding of all sides, so keep up the discussion.
lol, bong water of Scotch, I like that (the comment not Cutty Sark).
You misunderstand my basis for my arguments, I download things like Open Office and Linux while I am working to save money to get further training with network security because I want to become a network forensic investigator. I deal with network problems both as a hobby and for a living where I deal with an ISP with account setups and maintenance including onsite work, dealing with people and the internet is my job, I hear peoples problems. I also have an interest in politics so I do my democratic civic duty in voicing my opinions. I pay for my movies and music, mainly dealing with indie artists because I support their business models. Its not about getting free music, I don't care about that, its about the network and the politics and what I see as fraudulent uses of various laws, and laws that seem built for whoever has the most money not whoever got the most votes. I have said it before, I support supporting the artists, though I do not give a damn about the RIAA/MPAA who I think have become more concerned about themselves than the artists and thus counter productive.
In the end perfection is delivering a quality product cheaply and efficiently in quantity while maintaining the economic ability to continue doing so into the future. Cheaply and efficiently in quantity means digital transmission over an unhindered internet. Quality relates to that but also means having artists worth paying to produce their works. Maintaining the ability to continue into the future means they get paid enough to be able to carry on their work in, wait for it, the future. I do think most, though not all, of the entertainment world gets paid way to much and some of that money should be put in places like food production and all things medical, you know, things we actually NEED to survive.
Well, you raise good points and seem to believe it will not be manipulated for the worst and I admire that. I have a hard time with viewing things in that light and perhaps it colors my views.
As for criminal vs civil, I will admit I do not know everything about the differences but I do know the FBI has utilized the Patriot Act to bypass the need for a warrant while investigating copyright cases, which would imply criminal rather than civil. As far as protection under law goes, I believe in equality and am primarily worried about that going in decline. Honestly when the FBI uses a act designed to protect the citizens from terrorism to investigate civil cases, what does that say about what to expect?
To the next part, I have already covered the copyright link to criminal law so let us discuss the judge being convinced. I made these claims based on my own suspicion that the judges will rule in favor of the plaintiff in that regard, especially since this "good faith effort" really only applies if the defendant has an American address listed. HINT: if the site is not operating out of the states, they probably do not have one. If the address does not exist the AG may commence an "In Rem" action, essentially, just shut it off as there will not be a defendant. The rest of the comment is based on how the internet works, not commitment to piracy that is at issue.
EXPLANATION OF DNS AND IP (if you do not like technical details you may want to skip this paragraph): You punch in www.insightcommunity.com and your browser request is transferred to the DNS server your IP settings are programmed to ask. This DNS server then sends back the appropriate IP address, in this case you might get "188.8.131.52". Next your browser will connect you using this info. The law really doesn't stop anything. It is easy to find the IP and type it in yourself, in fact I have given you the IP for insightcommunity, try it, it took me seconds to find. Really all the law does is allow the judge to disconnect the domain name from the IP in some DNS servers but there are thousands you can program you IP settings to ask. The problem lies in the fact that if other countries start following suit with similar laws you may have to keep changing your DNS settings any time you want to view sites from a different area which will be confusing for a lot of people. It is easy but if you are unfamiliar with it, it can be confusing.
As for the infringing content standard being fairly high? Don't make me laugh. Time and again cease and desist notices have taken down content from YouTube and various other websites that is not infringement. The reaction is to ask question later, meaning time and again people are penalized simply because someone else was not paying attention to what was going on. Sure it happens in other areas everyday but that doesn't make it right.
As for these websites being devoted to making money selling the property of others, that is blatantly false. They might make enough to operate the site from advertising but the product is free, that is the issue. It is not a question of do I pay twenty bucks for the CD here or ten there, its do I pay twenty bucks here or get it for free. It is an economical no brainer, 100% off. And yes some of them do it as activism and/or as a political platform so that is incorrect as well.
The cost of production is down, pass that on to the consumer. The other issue I have is the some inability to find certain music or movies because they are too old but they are still copyright because it lasts 99 years or whatever it is anymore. Some infringement is just a last resort, so make it easier to acquire old works.
And no, no hangover, just a long day. Thanks anyway.
Another reason I think legislation that can lead to a lawsuit needs to be more carefully written to restrict the vast majority of them. Perhaps in the experience and education of the seismologists the evidence pointed to the unlikelihood of a major earthquake event but that does not guarantee there will not be an earthquake. People do not think for themselves much anymore.
What I don't understand is why the projector has to be designed in this way. DRM aside can the projector not be designed so that the projectionist could easily swap one lens out for the other? Yes it could, it just wasn't. They COULD make it plug and play but as was mentioned before, SONY does not like letting anyone other than themselves handle the hardware side of the product.
Still, that fact that they are still known widely as Seal Team 6 means that the trademark is already implied. Attempting to file for a trademark on something to which a implied trademark already exists is pretty low.
I think the problem here, and if you actually read the story before lashing out in defense of your opinion you will see that I am right, is that these lawyers are not trying to prevent people from "being stripped of their rights." What is actually going on is fraudulent lawsuits and blackmail.
As stated in the article, Mr. Steele is free to "pursue the normal path of suing an identifiable (and identified) defendant or defendants." Maybe you just missed this but it is a important part of the story.
The senate must just be tired of hearing about this and want to move on to other laws. I am upset with certain precedents being set that may negatively influence domestic and foreign laws in the future, notably the lack of proof required before enforcing action and the ability to issue lawsuits against sites registered and based in other countries with the attempt to force said countries to comply with American law.
The first is a dangerous precedent in that the legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty and a law like this could allow websites to compete with their competitors by suing them to shut down their websites. I think a monetary penalty to plaintiffs that use this tactic and come up short needs to be in place to help prevent that.
The second is simply a matter of diplomacy. If I tell you that you have to comply with my house rules despite not being a part of my house, you may retaliate in kind. Potentially causing problems for all, like downsizing the internet from the world wide web to a country by country basis. Right now, onc example is, if you need something that you can't find in country, you can use eBay to get it from wherever the product is. If such a situation were to occur, that could be no longer the case.
In closing, I think this law feels like a attempt to curb a problem that the lawmakers are having trouble fighting and are swinging wildly to solve. The problem with that is that while you may solve it, you cause a lot of collateral damage. I can understand that I guess, the US government has a history of not caring about collateral damages, simply calling it acceptable losses and sweeping it under the nearest rug.
Just a second, I missed something here. What were the terms of the agreement under which you purchased those "non-commercial licensed loops"? Therein may lie your problem. Either way it is worth looking into. I still find it frustrating that these kind of events happen but it is worth looking into so you can get your movie back up.
I understand your frustration as I have had conceptually similar events happen to myself. Unfortunately, at least for now, all you can do is write to your governmental representatives (and keep it fairly civil), the media (like you have done here), and take the appropriate legal actions. It sucks. Nevertheless if you do feel strongly enough about it to follow through, your actions may help bring about change for the better.
As to it being entertainment, I think this points to a deeper problem within our society where people are more willing to pay for what they find fun than what they need. On the flip side they are more willing to fight for what they find fun than what they need. I still feel more work is needed before closing the debate and it is nice to be able to actually HAVE a debate for once as opposed to a primitive flinging of digital feces.
As for caviar, I have yet to try it but I do like expensive scotch so I hear you there. Hopefully we as a society can work together and come to a reasonable solution to this whole thing, but I doubt it. Either way we still have caviar and scotch. ;)