The Internet is evolving. Like all societies of humans, the Internet branches and seeks new levels. Alternative models will continue to arise and be tested in the crucible of live culture. If the Freenet's Web of Trust idea ever gets traction in the open Internet, the death of e-presence of the casual evildoer is virtually guaranteed. The motivations to introducing the WOT more widely include situations such as this, i.e., destroying all ilks of liars about copyright, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Remember all - "Innocent until proven guilty"
Their own words & actions will convince a jury.
There are many things that haven't been mentioned publicly that are established facts. Despite what people want to believe, we didn't release everything we had. While we took great delight in ripping apart the filings and testimony on the Twitters, there are still secrets that any investigation would trip over.
Besides Hans & Steele wanting a jury trial is not that likely. The now 90+ yr old woman from San Fransisco who they hounded, and when she went to the media they admitted their foolproof never wrong system had failed and left her alone. How do you think a jury will react to a truly innocent victim who was hounded day and night... only to have them drop their 'air tight' case because the evidence wasn't accurate (or was it because the media put her on television calling them scammers out loud & drawing attention to the scam?)
... have you heard Oracle’s wonderful argument that the recent verdict that Google’s use of Java APIs was fair use could mean the end of the GPL?
I’ve been trying to figure out where exactly the leap in the logic occurs, and I’ve narrowed it down to this part:
...because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use.
In other words, “API use” is conflated with “any use”.
I wonder if their software is designed according to the same sort of logic...
Allow me to enlighten you. U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright
§ 102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
An API is essentially most of what this describes - an idea, procedure, process, method of operation, concept.
An API is just a specification. It's basically a framework that describes how to communicate within a given app or another app. Hence the name "Application Programming Interface" The underlying "behind the scenes" stuff WITHIN the API can be copyrighted, but not the API itself. It has no functionality on its own. Google did not copy ANY of the underlying code at all - only the API concept - mostly in the name of interoperability - something that copyright also allows for.
All was right as rain in the world until Oracle came along and started whining and had CAFC throw into chaos what had been decades long established industry practice (actually.. even before programming was even considered an industry for that matter)
I don't care what kind of moronic reason some idiot comes up with, fan art, fan fiction, fan films have never been considered "fair use". The reason most rights holders don't press it is because they don't consider them a serious threat.
I've seen that claim put forward before, and the funny thing is that it's not actually a pro-copyright argument when you think about it.
Massive amounts of creativity, ranging from very similar to the source material to wildly different, and under that reading of the law(which may very well be 'correct' in that it matches what the law says) most if not all of it is in violation of the law.
Given the entire purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public by having more works created, that it can be read to make vast amounts of creativity flat out illegal is not an argument against fan creations, it's an argument against the law, and a strong indicator that it needs to be updated so that it better serves it's stated purpose of serving the public.
> Unfortunately, the court is limited to what it can do in response to > the DOJ's misconduct.
Not as limited as you imply. The court could hold the lawyers in contempt, make them serve some time in jail and fine them personally for their dishonesty, and it could refer them all to their various bar associations for disciplinary action, to include disbarment.
The fact that court chose to do none of this in favor of some in-service ethics classes, which the attendees will spending either sleeping through or playing on their smart-phones, indicates the court didn't actually find outright lying by the government to be very troubling at all.
The real answer to this sort of stupid, is for the AirBnb's of the world to host in a different country. The US has become so reactionary and grasping that the safest business model is to have the active portions hosted somewhere safe, such as in Brazil.. where there is no extradition or mutual assistance treaty. Here a few weeks ago it was noted that a LEO had subpoened information from 23andMe. The intention being, one assumes to track a DNA match to or from a suspect. And there is no effective way for 23andMe to fight back, except, to have all of the DNA profiles stored somewhere in the world where there are strict data privacy laws. The DNA testing could still be done in the US (or better, Canada) but the data would never be retained. Same with AirBnB. And there would be very little exposure for airbnb.ca to any US municipality's whinging.
And of course, the lesson never sinks in. This is a parallel to situation to the utility of anonymous Panana corporations.
from a bud who works for Verizon in transferring to Frontier:
“Frontier didn’t get screwed. The systems stay the same for one year and we gave them an entire IT team to support the backend in the transition. We worked with them for MONTHS before the transition. This is not Verizon’s fault. The reality is that they are using the exact same system we do for FiOS. We just cut the ties in the database so the 2 sides don’t talk. The outages are all on frontier. They got our systems and our people and they still can’t make it work. Vz tried to tell them to convert rather than transition status quo. We even built them a proprietary version of our ordering system. In my mind it was gift wrapped. Interestingly, customers started complaining of slower throughput immediately after Frontier took over… And they are incapable of restoring service… Even though it’s the same people and the same systems.”-end quote
what I just stated above is from a Verizon employee that assisted in the transfer to Frontier so he knows what he’s talking about.
Here’s another post from another Verizon employee :
“The first Frontier purchase in 2009-2010 was relatively smooth because the properties sold were operated as a joint venture for about a year. This gave Frontier time to slowly integrate the newly-acquired properties into their operations so as to minimize disruption.
The 2016 purchase was essentially an immediate conversion. On midnight April 1, the network was cut over from Verizon management and connectivity to Frontier. The connectivity was handled mostly gracefully with central offices maintaining connection to the outside world, but Frontier management systems did not adapt to the sudden influx of heterogeneous elements so well, effectively resulting in bad configs being pushed to individual customers and central office equipment.
There are other aggravating circumstances. The company roughly doubling in size with >10,0000 Verizon employees making the same sudden transition to fundamentally new systems and processes did not help things. Another problem specific to voice is that a large percentage of Verizon fiber customers had migrated to VoIP platforms that Frontier did not have an analogue for (the tiny handful of VoIP fiber customers obtained in 2009-2010 were migrated back to TDM voice). Network management practices had diverged enough in ~7 years that the networks acquired in 2016 were markedly different animals than the 2009-2010 networks. The markets served are also markedly different – Frontier is heavily focused on being a rural to mid-sized city markets; the properties acquired ran the gamut but had an urban focus with different expectations – this may be shading Frontier’s approach to solving the many lingering problems.”
The intro stuff is a bit weird, but I'd call it poetic license.
If you read past that there's solid and sane advice/tutoring. I see nothing here to indicate this is a co-intell piece, quite the contrary. So far, the only things I find suspicious is the lack of mention of Copernic- which was an extreamly usefull reaserch tool at the time.
Aditionally there's no mention of linux- which (although still niche I guess) in 06 was already in a very usable state for a person of average intellegence. -iirc ubuntu 7 was very simple to install by that point, and Red Hat was even on Best Buy (or Circit City?) store shelves for a brief period; both having security/stability that were vastly superior to windows.
If it's co-intel- explain page 524 "Web Tip Virtually all Microsoft products come with all the doors open and unlocked, figuratively speaking. You must take upon yourself to find the open doors, shut them, and lock them tight."
They do a good job enumorating those open doors... If this was co-intel they'd be leading the reader to trust microsoft products- microsoft having allready signed up for prism, and god knows what else by that point.
Really, the whole chapter/section on security and privacy (514+) and resources (page 605+) is an acurate account of conserns and issues of the era, (many of which are still conserns...) and has links to the legitamate privacy/security sources of the time- such as grc.
It's unclassified because it's not important/secret info- just publicly sourced stuff. The only thing remarkable is that it was ever classified in the first place.
I got the problem the same as him did. I don't know why anyone and police have been following me. How should I do? and How did you Sue them? Because they've been following me everything even Facebook and google search.
I have been vocal and active on the internet from before the internet was open to the public. And while I certainly have received very, very angry comments from time to time, I have never (or rarely enough that I've forgotten) received any death threats that seemed serious.
However, it's a fact that certain groups of people, such as female gamers, experience this sort of thing regularly. To claim that this is in some way normal or acceptable and that it's somehow the fault or responsibility of the abused group is itself an example of the problem.
and for those idiots that wrongfully regard IP as 'property' imagine if I can just make you disconnect your refrigerator by claiming it's mine and making you first prove that it belongs to you, under penalty of perjury, before you can have it plugged back in. and then nothing happens to me because it was just an accident.
In IP la la land that's how the laws work because a bunch of sociopathic corporations wrote them. and that largely contributes to the dysfunctional nature of these laws.