Fair enough, I was thinking about the automated cameras that ticket parked cars when I wrote that section. Pretty much the same general idea; using automated systems to charge people with a crime regardless of accuracy and little to no repercussion if wrong.
At least for speeding and running lights there's actually a potential risk to public safety. DMCA takedowns only theoretically give an economic benefit to a copyright holder...and even that theory is extremely weak, if not provably false. But hey, even the slight chance that someone will make a bit of money is apparently worth the sacrifice of our freedom of speech, right?
There's a bigger fallacy at issue here. Even if they could compete, the only situation where this would have been an issue for Johnny Cash's estate is if someone heard Alan Jackson's song and then decided NOT to buy Johnny Cash's song because they'd bought Alan Jackson.
Why would this happen? If someone liked the Alan Jackson song there's a good chance they'd like Johnny Cash's song too, which means Alan Jackson's song increases the likelihood of a Johnny Cash purchase. If they weren't going to buy the Cash song anyway, either because it's not selling anymore, they hadn't heard it, or a myriad of other reasons, then Cash's estate hasn't lost anything.
The chances of similar songs harming either artist is much less likely than the opposite. You see this most commonly in Hip-Hop and Rap music when "competing" artists make group songs. Rather than dilute or harm their music, these artists recognize that including other musicians in their music brings groups of fans together, which potentially increases the revenue for all involved.
Art and culture are not scarce resources, and the more people involved the more valuable they become. This is why a video game that allows modding is more valuable than one that doesn't, and why movies, books, and shows that incorporate pop-culture references draw such big crowds. People love the shared culture and are drawn to it. People also love the familiar, and enjoy slight changes to an old favorite. Treating culture like coal or tables (scarce resources) simply doesn't make sense and makes it less valuable.
You can't block TOR from a technical standpoint (that's half the purpose) but you can certainly arrest/drone strike anyone running an exit node. That's the great thing about governments...they aren't limited by pesky "technical limitations" and "morals," they can just arrest or murder anyone who doesn't conform.
And hey, you won't know about it because you lost access to TOR. Everybody wins! (What losers? There are no losers...)
My guess is that someone wanted to define tax evasion for their point, so they searched for "tax evasion" and copied and pasted from somewhere that had a decent definition. They're writing an internet comment, not a thesis; plagiarism isn't exactly the first thing they're worried about, let alone "content infringement."
Either way the takedown is asinine. It's one thing to copy an entire article, or even the article's main points. To worry about your definition (not even a great definition) of a common term is ridiculous. Even if fair use didn't apply (I'm pretty sure it does, but the legality can be funky) that only shows an issue with the law, not the "infringement."
There really needs to be a way to punish companies for bogus DMCA takedowns. The argument that "there's too much stuff out there, so we can't verify everything!" is a cop-out. That's like the police whining that there's too many cars so they can't catch every speeder. Boo hoo, nobody cares. But when your automated systems punish those who haven't broken the law, there needs to be consequences, or all you're doing is encouraging abuse.
Graham's answer: "I don't email. No, you can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one. I don't know what that makes me."
Graham's explanation is in the original article. If he's doing it to avoid a paper trail, he's not admitting to it. Not sure I see what Tim could have expanded on based on the quote already used in the article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Such games, with their real-time animation, happen to be about the only user application which demands the power of an expensive computer.
Have you ever used a computer for serious video editing, rendering, or 3D graphics? What about physics or economics simulations? These require some decent horsepower (or a lot of wasted time). Most of the major editing programs, such as Adobe Photoshop/Premier, 3d Studio/Maya, Sony Vegas, etc. are not natively compatible with Linux and run only with varying degrees of success and efficiency using WINE. There are alternatives, of course, but none of them are at the level of these programs (no matter how much people claim Blender can "do it all"...it's not as good). A $200 computer and Linux just won't meet any sort of professional design work requirements; gaming is equally as bad, but not the only reason for a better computer.
Equally to the point, they should probably not share a machine with confidential documents, because they are bound to be trojans.
Huh? All computer games are bound to be trojans? That's like saying all knives are bound to be murder weapons. Very confusing.
Certainly they are responsible for problems which result from interactions between different parts of the distribution, and additionally, they are supposed to know about reasonably common hardware, such as the components of motherboards.
Huh? That was my whole point; the distro wasn't able to handle basic device drivers. My mouse, sound card, and webcam all either failed to work or worked only in certain situations or with considerable effort. After those issues I didn't dare try to install any overclocking software. Maybe a bit paranoid but I wasn't going to let Linux touch my voltage after the problems I'd already had.
The point about cable is that the cable company won't sell you broadband at any kind of reasonable price, until you've bought all the cable channels.
I haven't used Comcast recently but I've used both Time Warner and Hawaii Telecom, and neither offered cheaper internet with bundled cable. They offered really cheap cable if you already had internet, but the internet alone was cheaper. In fact, I couldn't find a single article or ad that showed you could get bundled cable and internet on Comcast for cheaper than just internet. It's obviously in their best interest to get people to stick with having cable but you certainly aren't forced to and you aren't paying more to choose not to.
Granted, you may not want to use Comcast for other reasons (like being Comcast) but to imply that you're forced into cable or that you're getting better service using dial-up seems a bit extreme.
Anyway, all of your responses have only highlighted my original point; Linux works only in extremely limited purposes, such as the high tech level (which, no offense, you are not in) and the basic or extremely specialized computing level (which would probably work just as well, if not better, using a Chromebook, and for a similar price).
Which is too bad, because there's so much potential there. Oh well.
TV shows like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight often take clips and images directly from news organizations with little to no modification. There's no permission needed because they are commenting on the work. Sometimes they play a clip directly with no commentary, although it's obvious to the viewers that commentary is happening (usually because the clip highlights something really stupid).
This is all protected under fair use and parody. And it's vitally important that this right is protected, as being unable to comment on the speech of others (in whatever form that speech takes) not only violates the First Amendment but is a sign of living in a oppressed state.
As a lawyer and as the consulting editor on NPR's Double Take Toons, while I disagree with Chip Bok's view of Net Neutrality, but I do support him on his understanding of fair use.
You must be a terrible lawyer.
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them.
Nope. If I buy a painting, and then draw beards on all the women and put it upside down on my wall, I am not using or presenting it as the artist intended...and there isn't a shred of legal protection that prevents me from doing so.
In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work.
Nope. Copyright is not a moral right, and there is no right protecting the integrity of a work. He only has the right to be the sole distributor of his original work and derivatives thereof, if the derivatives are not covered under fair use. He has zero rights to this clear parody.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not even close. His original work is still available and we can all laugh at his ignorance together. Honestly, if it did somehow silence his speech, it would probably be better...at least he wouldn't have his idiocy broadcasted for the world to see. Alas, his speech is still available, and we can all ridicule it to our heart's content.
And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
Someone would mistake "The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" as his own work? I'm sure people make cartoons that refer to themselves in third person and insult themselves, while not commenting on the actual image shown, all the time.
Nothing you mentioned is covered by law, and would not even be entertained by a court, let alone successfully prosecuted. If you're his lawyer and/or consultant no wonder he has no idea how copyright law works.
Please, go for your lawsuit, let as all know how it works out. We need some more laughs around here!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Sorry, I may have made things unclear when I was discussing distros and companies. It's not the OS itself which is profitable or made for profit. It's the surrounding ecosystem. For example, some Steam games have native Linux versions but the vast majority don't. If I'm an user of Linux, and want to play computer games (as an example), my options are extremely limited.
So what? Developers don't generally bother with platforms that are unpopular (see: BlackBerry). The more popular and used Linux becomes, the more developers have a legitimate business reason to develop for the OS. This, in turn, gives the users of Linux more options, more freedom, and higher quality products.
By ignoring difficulties and releasing buggy, incompatible, and arcane software that only the most dedicated users will ever understand or be able to use efficiently, developers are less likely to make their software compatible with Linux. So now you're left with a buggy, incompatible, arcane, and empty OS. And with Windows 10 being released as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, not even the shenanigans of Windows 8 will be enough to draw people away from Windows. Your argument is this doesn't affect Linux or Linux users, but since an operating system is practically worthless without software, I strongly disagree.
Again, my issues with Linux were probably specific to my particular computer. I built it completely from individually purchased parts and each one has its own drivers and bugs. I went in to Linux expecting to be able to modify my system heavily if I chose but have a basic, working operating system at the core. It did not meet that expectation and did not do what I wanted it to do.
If I were using it for different purposes, perhaps just for programming or just for word processing, or even just for a specific business program, maybe I would feel differently. I use my computer for a myriad of purposes, from word processing, data analysis, graphic design, programming, video gaming, and entertainment. Hardly any of my existing software worked, or worked without significant trouble, and alternative software options were all inferior to existing or incompatible products.
Which was my original point. Developers are not going to spend the time and energy to make their software for systems that aren't going to make them a profit compared to the time invested in entering that market. If Linux users want a better experience, it's in their best interest to have more people enter the platform and create a demand for Linux-compatible software. The attitude of "it works for me, so it's fine" and the high learning curve, often without much help to users trying to switch (or outright derision from the community), hurts the platform as a whole for everyone...including existing users.
Graham has made it clear that he deliberately and consciously denies himself a communication tool that would enable him to make off-the-cuff statements without thinking them through.
He prefers not to do that.
Huh? We're talking about email, not text messaging. You have plenty of opportunity to review and think through something via email, and it's a fantastic organizational tool.
All he's made clear is that he's completely ineffective as a leader. The real work is being done without him. Anyone who's worked in the government (or even a decently sized corporation) knows that a significant percent of your productivity is based on your ability to organize, task, and communicate through email. He's automatically losing a huge amount of collaboration and situational awareness by choosing not to use it.
And if he were so opposed to making off-the-cuff statements without thinking them through, he would have never gone on the record telling the American public he's so backwards and incompetent he doesn't even use basic communication tools to do his job. Embarrassing emails are the least of his problems.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Um, your point about using 40-year-old computer systems and being proud of that was pretty much my point. I used Tandy 1000s, MS-DOS, and other green/orange-and-black computers with no hard drive, a 5.25" floppy. I think it was my third computer where I first used this fancy "mouse" thing.
I remember spending hours modifying AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files to create boot disks for each program, and finally finding the right code to get my stupid sound card working. I remember spending the time to type out long, complex commands and having to tab through multiple pages to find the right information...and heaven forbid you miss the page, because there was no "back" option; you got to start over. And forget copying that information elsewhere or multitasking; you got to write it down on a sheet of paper then manually type it in later.
Been there, done that. Those systems didn't have more freedom or customizability than modern ones. They were just harder to use and less forgiving. Do you program? Do you prefer the old compilers with hardly any documentation (let alone smart documentation), no autocomplete, arcane or useless syntax errors that didn't even highlight the general location of the error, etc.? I'll take my modern compiler with visual assistance and built-in libraries, error checking, and debug modules, thanks. If you prefer the old way that's fine, but the majority of people out there are unlikely to feel the same way.
I have no idea what you mean by becoming a "fraternity boy" by using broadband. Clearly it's meant to be derogatory but I can't really understand how it relates in this context. Your water supply example doesn't really make sense to me either; you're simply paying your phone company (probably for two phone lines) and dial-up company rather than Comcast. In both situations you're paying a private company for your "utility." While I certainly don't like Comcast, you're not really comparing like products; the crappiest broadband, heck even 3g wireless, is significantly better than the best dial-up internet (the fastest uncompressed dial-up is around 56 kbps whereas the slowest 3g is around 200 kbps; even with lossy compression a dial-up is still slower than the worst broadband or 4g internet). It's more like you're comparing a bicycle to a car. Sure, the bicycle works, but unless you're living in very specific circumstances it's rarely going to be even a fraction of the utility of a mid-low range car.
I'm glad Linux works for you, but the fact that you're satisfied with dial-up and your 40-year-old computer experience doesn't make a good case for Linux as being a viable alternative to Windows/Mac. I'm also confused why you would use two separate computers rather than a dual boot machine (possibly with two hard drives), especially if you're concerned about the price of broadband. And if it weren't for your dial-up internet, I'd wonder why you're using a manual rather than online Linux forums (which is the only reliable place I found to fix anything). I'm not trying to be rude or combative; I honestly don't understand your situation and how Linux is helping you, especially since you already paid for Windows.
I really want to like Linux, and I want it to be able to compete with Windows and Mac for a couple reasons. First, I want more developers to create awesome stuff for the platform, which they probably won't do unless the OS gets more adoption. Second, I want to see a free product compete with other operating systems, forcing them to deliver a better product at a lower price in order to stay relevant. Third, I like the idea of an OS I can really customize and make my own.
It just isn't there, and it concerns me that the people who use it are so wrapped up in their nostalgic "hipster" mentality that the programmers are catering to that crowd. It's just so much wasted potential.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Linux doesn't "want to dig into the Windows market". That's Microsoft (and Apple) think and doesn't apply.
I doubt the companies that develop the Linux distros agree. "Open source" is fantastic, but to imply that there is no monetary gain or advantage in competing with other players in a similar market is a bit naive.
Linux itself may be free, but much of the software and peripherals designed for it are not. The more people that adopt the Linux platform the more potential customers these developers stand to gain. By making Linux free they have a huge potential user base. While I'm certain there are Linux users that touch nothing but open source, free software there are plenty more that buy Linux compatible software.
There is a lot of potential money in making Linux a more popular OS. Being "elitist" and limiting your user base to tech snobs who love to reminisce about AUTOEXEC.BAT editing is a poor long-term plan for anyone utilizing the platform.
The more people that adopt Linux, the more developers are likely to spend the time and effort to develop software that is native to the OS, which makes the system better for everyone. It also encourages Microsoft and Apple to be a bit more competitive with their own products, and it's working to a degree already (I doubt Microsoft would offer Windows 10 as a free upgrade just for kicks).
I'm willing to learn a new system, and I'm willing to put in some effort to pull out some advanced features. I'm just not willing to have to fight my computer to do basic functions, like click mouse buttons. I'm not alone. And all the others like me are making your chosen platform have less options and be less profitable for developers.
I'm not sure how that's beneficial to anyone (other than Microsoft and Apple, of course).
Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Is his defense, he's still using dial-up, so maybe by the time the page loaded it was still showing up as "new." =)
On a related note, Linux Mint was the first distribution of Linux I tried. And believe me, I tried. I ran into a couple of issues immediately:
- My mouse didn't register the mouse buttons after logging into the system after bootup. I would have to log out via the keyboard, log back in, and the mouse would work.
- My mouse, a R.A.T 7, had insane acceleration. Adjusting the built-in mouse settings did nothing. I had to manually enter my mouse settings through the shell and set up a script to run every time my computer booted just to be able to use the mouse.
- The system would not recognize my sound card, regardless of the drivers installed. The on-board sound worked...except in Google Chrome, which would only play sound via the sound card. No software solution I could find worked. If I wanted to watch Youtube in Chrome I'd need to physically replug my speakers into my computer.
- Steam had only about eight games with native Linux support that I owned, and of them only two actually worked when I tried them and none were games that I played regularly. WINE required extensive setup for each and every game I wanted to play, and would often crash.
- Web browsers, especially Chrome but also Firefox, routinely crashed.
- The majority of my external devices, including a webcam and my phone, did not work and/or have working drivers.
While Linux seemed perfect for me in theory, in practice it was a giant headache, and having to do everything via command line (with varying degrees of success), including installing system programs (again, with varying degrees of success) was profoundly irritating. Having almost none of my software or hardware work or work without effort made it nearly impossible to work or play on my home computer. I lasted about a month and a half before removing Linux from my master boot record and reformatting its partition.
Kudos to all you out there using it and having it work for you. You're probably not doing the same stuff I am, or you have significantly more computer knowledge than I do...and I'm an amateur programmer and build my own computers, which is probably more knowledgeable than your average user.
If Linux really wants to dig into the Windows market there needs to be huge strides in basic compatibility; being able to switch to multiple unique desktops is a neat novelty, but if my core stuff doesn't work I'm not going to want to use it. And I actually know how to research things and implement solutions; the average user would probably have given up the first time their mouse buttons didn't work.
It's too bad. Windows 8 has many flaws, but everything generally works when you plug it in (with the possible exception of networking, which is about as intuitive as writing in ASCII hexadecimal codes, and works when it feels like it). I love the idea of an OS I can really dig into and customize, but rather than getting a Honda Civic I can trick out I feel like I got a Jeep Cherokee with the doors falling off and no wheels. Sure, I can fix it up and deal with it's issues, but why bother?
While there are certainly abuses of the law that doesn't make the action legal or unprosecutable. To use the example of another notorious group in the financial sector, stealing billions of dollars via insider trading and other methods is highly illegal, but few of the criminals involved in the scandals circa 2008 were even charged, let alone convicted, of their crimes. We should not accept lawbreaking simply because the people involved have power and money.
There are other hackathons so technicly civilian hackers aren't prosecuted at least as long as they disclose their find to the company.
Sorry, this was a rhetorical question. The "hackathons" you're talking about are programming expos; nothing that would constitute a computer crime happens there (at least, not without risking prosecution). While illegal hackathons certainly exist they can also be legally prosecuted. Likewise, disclosing your finds may not protect you from prosecution.
This all goes back to the horror of what Snowden revealed. It's bad enough that it was happening. The real tragedy, however, is that it was all considered legal. You know there's a problem when the American public is outraged over something that, for all practical purposes, broke no law. If that doesn't reveal the size of the schism between what the people want and our government's actions I don't know what does.
The irony in this is that, historically, the United States has been one of the biggest violators of intellectual property rights in the world. Throughout most of the 19th century foreign patents and copyrights were simply ignored. Much of our technology and industry was based on British and German intellectual property that was nowhere near authorized.
The Chinese did (and are still doing) the same thing, but now that it's our IP being taken, we get all upset about it. It's like watching a kid cry about how the toy he stole from his sister was taken by bullies.
Let's try again. First of all, net neutrality has nothing to do with network security. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not even the idiots against net neutrality argue this.
Second, you have to be insane to think the current system is "freedom." Do you actually use any of the main ISPs? Do you use your internet for more than email? If so, you may have noticed a) you have a maximum of 2-3 options for your internet, if that, and b) all of your options are awful. Your real choice is either crappy, abusive internet or no internet. Yeah, that's freedom.
Third, the Title II rules can't do what you're afraid of. Even if we haven't seen the full rules we can ignore most of the FUD purely based on the other industries already regulated under Title II. You know, like the internet itself prior to broadband, which was regulated under Title II. And your cell phone, which is regulated under Title II. And these exist under rules that are more strict than the rules the FCC is proposing (we know this, because they already announced it).
Weirdly, you have significantly more choice in cell phone carriers, and there were more ISPs during dial-up internet than broadband. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but hey, I haven't seen the FCC regulating what calls you make or how much porn you watch on your phone. Now, Apple may not like your porn-viewing habits, but the FCC has never even made a statement on controlling online or phone content, let alone attempted to regulate it.
Must be nice to live in a black-and-white dream world where government = bad and business = good. So easy to conceptualize and understand. Completely divorced from reality, but hey, who needs that when you've got it all figured out?
It cracks me up that using someone else's password could be a violation of the CFAA, landing you years of prison time, but the CIA can hold "hack-a-thons" which encourage mass CFAA violations. Unless I missed a memo, government employees still have to obey the law. As a government employee, I'd really like to see that law, because right now I have to obey all of them and more (UCMJ).
"But it's the CIA!" many of you may be thinking, "They're supposed to be hacking stuff!" Not quite. Just like the military, most intelligence services have clear "rules of engagement" when it comes to using their tools. One of those ROEs is usually "target is foreign" in varying degrees of specificity. While it's certainly possible they simply marked Apple as "foreign" somehow that seems more than a little bit of a stretch.
The weird part about all of this stuff is that it's illegal to mark illegal actions as classified for the purpose of hiding those actions. That's why the NSA made such a big deal about the FISA court making all their shenanigans "legal," without that defense, they literally aren't allowed to classify it (or do it, for that matter). This is strange because EO 13526 is the fundamental order that drives virtually all classification guidelines throughout the government, and it specifically states the following:
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security. (emphasis mine)
Laws like the CFAA apply to organizations like the CIA; they don't get a magical free pass because it's their job, just like police don't just get to shoot anyone or break into their houses because it's their job (although it can sometimes be difficult to see). They need specific criteria to work around those laws.
I'm curious if a group of civilian hackers would be prosecuted for doing the same thing. If so, and the CIA hackers are not using their tools specifically on a foreign intelligence or otherwise suspected criminal element (which Apple is not), they are clearly breaking the law.
Just like the police, it's amazing what people will do when they have enough lawyers to ignore their violations and they've convinced themselves they're doing it "for our own good."