I occasionally watch ESPN but don't, and won't, pay for a sports package. I'm not unique in this.
Unless you're pirating cable, you *are* already paying and *will* pay for the sports package (ESPN) that is included in your basic rates.
That last time I looked up how the fees of a basic cable package got divided it was something like:
ABC: $0.20 NBC: $0.20 Discovery: $0.35 ...long list of channels all under $1.00 until the very last one... ESPN: $6.75
ESPN really doesn't want it obvious to most customers how much more their content costs compared to other things. So of course they'll fight Verizon on this.
Is Verizon likely to lose from a legal standpoint if the contract they signed with ESPN says they've gotta include it? Probably. However, ESPN will also lose, because the fat fees it gets to rake in will prevent it wanting to adapt to a very much changing market. Customers lose for paying for something they don't want, and many of which don't even realize what they're paying for. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.
That is correct for certain types of key sharing schemes - but not all, and there can still be major issues with implementing in the real world more robust schemes. This was a very simple explanation for people not familiar with crypto (like the idiots wanting to write the law to require backdoors).
The NSA would secretly make it a priority to go after each party holding a part of that key and to obtain their part of the key.
Even if they don't get all of the key, knowing part of it can significantly reduce the effort to crack or brute-force the encryption. Anything that reduces the possible keyspace from the expected is a huge win to an attacker of a crypto system (cryptanalysis).
As a very simple example to explain the concept: I've got a safe with a 4 digit combination. 0000 through 9999. There are 10,000 possible combinations to this safe. I break my key up into two parts: the first two digits and the second two. I give you the first two, which happen to be 64##, to the safemaker. I give the second two ##32, to the police.
Q: How many tries would either the safemaker or the police need to try to get into the safe? A: Maximum, they would each need 100 tries.
The safe maker would try 6400, 6401, 6402, and so on. The police would try 0032, 0132, 0232, and so on. The average for either would only be 50, assuming they knew nothing else, like my penchant for choosing powers of 2 as a safe combination.
What about the money angle? There's a ton of government contractors getting contracts to supply equipment and services to the intelligence agencies. They're certainly lobbying to keep those budgets high and the gravy train flowing.
Karl doesn't advocate piracy, but I do. Simply because as stated, there's no other reasonable legal alternative.
I highly recommend paying for the content you enjoy - I do so as much as I can - but some companies refuse to give me any reasonable way to give them money. It's been mind-boggling for a decade, and every year that these companies leave so much money on the table becomes more mind-boggling that there aren't shareholder revolts.
So my monthly entertainment/content bill is something like this: -TimeWarnerCable absurdly crappy internet with absurdly crappier service: $60... no $70... no $80... fuck did they raise the bill again? Hurry up and wire my street GoogleFiber. -Spotify: $10 -Netflix: $9 -Techdirt: $5 -Patreon/Subbable support for various projects: $10-30 -Gaming: $50-100 a month for either games themselves or various in-game purchases/DLC
I'd be perfectly fine adding 1 or at most 2 more Netflix-like services if it will cover everything I'd want to view. But I'm not buying a cable tv subscription + HBO Go for 10 episodes of Game of Thrones a year. I'm not going to buy a console to have access to some Playstation or XBox exclusive content. I will pirate to make up for the gaps in reasonable services.
This whole saga is a perfect example of what happens when there is an intended security vulnerability in a product. If there is a security hole for one thing, it absolutely will be found and used for other things.
It relates perfectly to our discussions on encryption and "golden keys". Government wants a backdoor to an encryption scheme? That's a backdoor for everyone else, too - and they'll find it and use it. It might be some advertiser trying to track you to make a buck. It might be an organized crime doing identity theft. It might be a hostile government's intelligence service.
Gotta disagree here. Parents have a huge effect on who their children become. The issue is that most of the direct conscious decisions parents make only have a small effect. Yes, much of the behavior kids learn is from their environment and community - but remember that the people those kids are around the most during their development are their parents.
It's not that your kid turned out ok *because* you took him to a museum or helped him with his homework - but that *you're the type of person* that would want to take your kid to a museum and help him with his homework that matters more, because its the type that impacts all the things you do.
Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?
No copyright for anything, for anyone, would be a perfectly objective system. Anything that anyone creates would be fair game without any restrictions for everyone else to use/change/profit from however they could manage.
A completely even playing field in terms of the law. What's not to love about that?
but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for?
I'll raise my hand to that.
I think every single person on this planet should have unrestricted access to the sum total of human knowledge, ideas, and culture. That is the ultimate goal.
I think intentional restriction of that goal of sharing is the immoral act.
Now, I live in the real world, so I understand that there will be some barriers based on economic scarcities (real scarcities, not made up ones), so I'm not saying that Hollywood *has to* buy every kid in underdeveloped countries an iPod and build their internet infrastructure so they can listen to American pop music. However once that infrastructure exists, why *shouldn't* those kids have access to all of those ideas when the real marginal costs to provide it is vanishingly close to zero?