You appear to have trouble with basic reading comprehension. The law is clear that if you supply encryption where the company does not have the key, then you do not have to help decrypt it. That's EXACTLY what Apple is doing here. It does not have the information to decrypt it.
The law makes it clear that telcos don't have to build backdoors into their encryption systems. Cotton is wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.
It's just that most commenters on Techdirt, yourself for example, are torrent addicts, and that is why they're sweating encryption laws.
You seem overly paranoid about torrenting. Weird.
I've actually never used BitTorrent myself. Don't even have any BitTorrent clients on my computer. And I'm quite worried about encryption issues. It's got nothing to do with copyright stuff, and everything to do with privacy.
Do you always project so much on people who actually know what they're talking about when you get into arguments?
For almost 100 years via a warrant, law enforcement has been able to tap telephones. And they should be able to do the same with internet communications.
You are, apparently, totally unaware of how a cost-benefit analysis works, huh?
The issue here is not just the ability to tap internet communications. If it were just that, I don't think many would complain. Tapping phone is mostly possible to only be limited to law enforcement. But that's not the case with internet communications. Because it's software based, and because of the nature of encryption, opening up a backdoor puts everyone at significant risk. The "benefits" are much smaller than the "costs."
Your simplistic "well we do it for telephones" misses the point in a huge way.
I wonder who in the Old West complained this much about its wildness being tamed.
If this bill were about somehow "limiting" a wild west environment, you might have a point. But seeing as it's actually about getting tech companies to cough up more private info to the gov't, not sure I get your point.
Will this be the new future for techdirt? Sponsored stories and native ads?
We've done these for years. In fact, some of our most popular stories have been sponsored posts. We always work to make sure that the content is relevant and good content as well. In this case, that's especially true. It is a sponsored post, but it's in support of a project by our think tank, the Copia Institute, and the content is clearly relevant for the Techdirt audience.
And of course, it is all clearly marked and disclosed. I'm not quite sure what your complaint is. If this post were NOT a sponsored post, I still think the content would fit right in with Techdirt's regular content -- which is what makes it good "advertising is content." It's about policies designed to impact the internet, privacy, competition and innovation. It's about a project that we did ourselves.
Seems far from the whole "advertising is content" approach.
Actually, seems exactly like "advertising is content." It's relevant, useful content, that also is sponsored. I'm still confused what the complaint is other than an allergic reaction to anything being "sponsored" in any way.
TO all the lawyers (particularly constitutional lawyers) Could the DMCA be construed as a 1st amendment violation? That whole bit about "The govt shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.." bit. The reason I ask, is that the DMCA is a govt law, and it IS abridging our freedom of speech".
That argument has been made in an academic setting:
That is entirely possible. But if enough people speak out against that, it makes it that much harder. If people don't speak out, then they will quickly claim that they have the public's support. So you should speak out.
The lines are hard to draw, but we got section 230 passed back in 1996 on a promise of self-regulation. When Internet companies struggle about how to do that, we can't object that the entire enterprise is illegitimate.
I don't think that invalidates concerns about *how* they try to do that. I still think it makes more sense to put the power in the end users' hands, rather than the centralized platforms.
Copyright law has been stated to apply to humans for basically all of its history.
The only difficult issue is who owns the photos and who has standing to sue.
Again, you are making the false assumption that the rights in the photograph need to be owned. That's wrong.
Thus, the owners of the monkey own the copyright and hold it in trust for the benefit of the monkey. This is not crazy or silly.
Yes, it is. That is neither what the law says or how it has worked.
Further, I see no public interest in causing the photos to be in the public domain.
Really?!? Having the photos in the public domain allows the public to make use of them, to create new works, to enjoy the photographs. That's the entire point of the public domain. Your argument suggests you don't see any value in the public domain at all.
Why not use the license fees to provide a healthy life for the monkey?
Because the entire point of copyright law is to provide incentives to create. Do you honestly think the monkey thought "gee, I need exclusive rights to make this photograph"?
Perhaps over time he will learn to take more photos which could be invaluable to scientists studying cognitive functions.
I'm beginning to think your comment is satire and I fell for it...
I don't think it has anything to do with "social justice." Not sure how this is relevant. "Social shaming" has nothing to do with "social justice."
As for the idea of "shaming" people -- the idea that it's gone out of style is pretty ridiculous, no? Pretty much everyone, no matter what their viewpoint/political persuasion/whatever makes use of social shaming at some point or another.