Are you blind? Did you somehow overlook Viacom vs. YouTube, in which Google presented evidence that Viacom authorized the posting of numerous "pirated(-looking) videos" on YouTube as a form of viral marketing?
> Congress was so intent on providing safe harbors
I wasn't there when the DMCA managed to get through, but given what I've been seeing about Congress recently, it seems to me to be equally likely that they were just "so intent" on pushing something through, so they could continue to collect big campaign contributions from certain lobbyists...
I find your comment simultaneously both insightful and ironic, since the "mentality" of copyright most often resonates with the philosophy of "moral rights" (which is widespread in Europe) rather than the relatively strict view of copyright as an economic issue which is mostly found in US law.
Do you always feel an urgent need in public forums to repeatedly post over and over again, in a futile attempt to drown out other opinions, rather than actually countering them?
Your understanding of science seems limited. For example, why did you post an "op-ed" piece from the BMJ as evidence? You don't seem to realize that in order to come to a conclusion, you have to review the whole body of scientific literature on a subject, rather than just cherry-picking?
Ever thought of, say, backing up your statements with evidence, or learning some critical thinking skills (never mind science knowledge, which you also seem to woefully lack)? Myself, I'd say that nuclear regulation is about the only sector of government where public pressure manages to counterbalance the growing power of industry (with the result varying from country to country).
I have to admit the "superpowers and spandex" was witty, tho.
Let's invent an algorithm for generating a sequence of random fallback tracker URLs, similar to the algorithms for C&C URLs for botnets --- but let's make sure that it involves using some information from all/any of the *AAs websites.
Then, by the same logic, the court would have to ask for those websites to be similarly expunged. This outcome might "help" the court understand that such a ruling is not a good idea...
> I think heís using SHA-3 because thatís the anointed > new trendy hawtness from NIST
I guess he missed out the part where NIST "suddenly" wanted to reset the security parameters of SHA-3... anyone following the recent news wouldn't think of SHA-3 as a stellar candidate for being an essential part of a stego algorithm.
Or did the NSA tell them to do that to try to make us think that the original parameters were "too hard" for them? Inquiring minds want to know!
Well, if it's anything like the version I thought up independently, the algorithm only uses a limited number of bits of the result of the hash function, enabling a brute force search to (sometimes, since there is no reason, except statistics, to expect that this would be possible) invert what would ordinarily be, as you said, an uninvertible function.
(In addition, one would probably prefer to use SHA256 nowadays instead of SHA3, since fast hardware is readily available to accelerate such an inversion of SHA256 --- namely, any Bitcoin mining setup.)
I'm off to check it out. I hope his work is an improvement on my own --- it'll save me a lot of trouble getting my own into publishable form.
Not only are you correct about the improper comparison, I would like to point out that anyone really serious about shutting down a facility like the one which was attacked could easily gather intelligence from an unmanned drone, and then attack it with, for example, bombs/grenades launched from a small truck-mounted catapult. Or even possibly just with small rockets designed to drop metal cables in the proper locations --- no explosives necessary.
Spending money to defend against the chance of someone attacking would almost certainly not be cost-effective, however, unless the likelihood of such attacks would increase dramatically. How unfortunate that human psychology is irrationally biased towards favoring safety against vanishingly rare but dramatic risks and ignoring common, small ones (like having less money because electricity is more expensive).
> I'm sure they have considered that feature for > copies that fail their legitimacy check.
Considered? Yes. Conclusion? It's better that home users pirate our stuff, so we maintain market dominance. Gates once admitted that MS greatly preferred that the Chinese pirate Windows rather than them adopting/developing a replacement.
Someone should start a civil disobedience campaign where at every showing of every movie, one or more people hold up their switched-off or screen-blackened-not-recording phones as if they were recording. I think the cops would get very, very sick of coming to investigate for no reason, and the movie theater owners might actually figure out that the "enforcement" loses them customers.
I also wonder how this could be enforced in Canada --- if copying for fair use is a consumer right, there, then if someone records, say, 20 seconds of a movie, I don't see how they could be prosecuted.
I personally prefer the term "creator's usufruct", in that it emphasizes that what is being milked for income belongs to society, not the creator herself. (Besides which, "usufruct" has such a "woody" sound to it...)
Of course, this inversion of rhetoric will probably never see wide use, since: (1) most content creators are too self-centered to adopt it, (2) most content gatekeepers are too savvy to allow language usage to undermine their current rhetorical advantage, and (3) usufruct isn't actually a universal legal concept, but rather a civil law concept.
(Please don't take this post to mean that I support the current form or terms of these usufructs; this is about terminology, only...)