Maybe (or at least I hope) the FCC is giving the big ISPs enough rope to hang themselves here.
And, another big maybe, the FTC is going to EVENTUALLY step in because of the false advertising. How many times are we going to have to go down the road that "unlimited" means one thing and it is not what is being delivered? Can the ISP's just rewrite the definition of words the way that law enforcement does to get anything they want?
Or, maybe this is the same as the "best effort" that LEO's make when they stop somebody on a made up law just to create probable cause.
I threw out a suggestion as part of a conversation. My point was that their chosen option of "boom, your dead" is not supposed to be an acceptable choice in the United States. It rings of the approach of "Judge Dredd" days approaching.
What other suggestions do you have other than "boom, your dead" option they chose. Something less lethal is what I had in mind. A military response is not supposed to be the first choice. Negotiations or wait him out (no food, no sleep will eventually make him slow and stupid).
Maybe even send in a big box of flash-bangs to blind and deafen him before sending in the "troops" would work.
He was cornered and contained by a large force of police. Where was he going to go, what was he going to do.
The bomb on a robot was a stupid and embarrassing idea and the police are no longer on that slippery slope, they are running as fast as they can down the hill into dangerous territory with no stop in sight.
OK, so sleeping gas may not be it, but what have you got?
OK, I can understand a desire to terminate the situation as soon as possible. However; why couldn't they load up the robot with tear gas or sleeping gas instead of a bomb. This might inconvenience anyone nearby that got a dose of gas, but at least then nobody gets dead and there is a WHOLE LOT less explaining to do.
I guess the new police as military troops need to kill not capture the enemy (I mean suspect).
I mean, after all, they are providing advertising for the Rio Olympic games aren't they?
Or, even better, if the problem is that there is a tiny little Olympic symbol, just blur it into unrecognizability and leave the picture up that way. Take out the RIO and change it to she is going to Rio de Janeiro for an event, and leave it at that. OR, has IOC now trademarked the name of the city and nobody (including the residents) can use the name of the city except in officially sanctioned IOC activities?
Joining sampling with the "new copyright for remastering" idea, all the samplers are going to have to do is alter the sample a little bit through artistic choices. If the remastering qualifies the work as "new" and different and therefore a new 95 year copyright, then the same type of alterations in a sample will qualify them as new and not theft of IP (I know its actually infringement). If that remastering theory holds up, then the whole world of sampling is back on the table as OK.
It is also a shame that op-ed pieces like this get to keep conflating the poor starving artist with the actual copyright owners who get paid. The multi-billion dollar publishing industry that requires that artists turn over the copyright before they can get their content circulated and sold are huge industries making lots of money. The artists who actually create the content are forced to sign over the copyrights to their work and due to "creative" accounting are rarely paid unless they become a super-mega-star.
And then, there are many lawsuits by the only-stars that are being cheated out of their royalties. Why is that?
One point not so far laid out is how IBM plans to make money from this since they don't build printers/copiers. The first thought that comes to my mind is that IBM will actually create a service that all printer makers will need to reference to see if a work has a registered copyright (with a pay for access arrangement). AND that copyright owners (I was careful not to say authors), can "register" their works (for a fee). So IBM will collect fees for letting owners register works that they want protected, and printer manufacturers can build into their printers for a fee and then printer users can pay a fee to use the service. IBM gets lots of fees and they don't even have to manufacture printers.
Actually, it's even worse than planned obsolescence. With no notice, the day after the purchase, the "service as a product" could be turned off. Planned obsolescence at least was a pre-determination that after a period of time the product would wear out and need to be replaced. Like after a hammer is used 6000 times, it would fall apart and a new hammer would be needed. This way, the hammer company would stay in business selling replacement hammers. In this case, the whole company got purchased and suddenly all of the existing products just stopped working. Well before the 6000 nails got hit.
At least when a mobile phone is purchased, the consumer knows that they depend on the phone company. Except for a few die-hard techies who would even think that the fancy new thermostat would require a "thermostat company" to stay in business to regulate the temperature in your house. This one was especially tricky because there was no monthly fee for the service, so whomever bought the thermostat company did not feel obligated to maintain that expense with no subsequent monthly fees to offset the cost. And who wants to pay a monthly fee for the thermostat in their house. Especially since the old one worked fine. The new thermostat is supposed to save money, not cost $20/month more.
But it is so much easier to deal with the sensationalism around the FUD than to actually research the facts and shine some light on the truth (small parts or otherwise). An "anonymous" DMCA notice about a small body part is so much more titillating than the truth that there is no such thing as an anonymous DMCA notice. Techdirt is just going to learn more about how to publish stories with half-truths in the blog in order to cause more sensations.
One of the reasons that Apple didn't want to build the backdoor that the FBI wanted was that it would have to submit the exploit to 3rd party validation before the evidence could be used in court. Is the FBI subject to the same rules or can they just say "well of course we got it off of his phone, you can trust us".
Oh COME ON. Their criminals. Just cut them open and grant the tracker to a bone with a long term battery and let them start broadcasting their location. Just think, as a side benefit all of the electro-sensitives will have to leave town because of all the criminals walking around broadcasting their locations. IT'S A HUGE WIN-WIN.........
The only surprise here is that they still bother to actually ask the questions! I stopped answering phone polls once I realized that A) the poll was being done so that someone else can make money off of me and B) my answers really didn't matter, they questions were asked in such a way to elicit the answers they wanted and get the their desired results. Just like these two polls.
The truly sad part is that now that the FBI has decided that this is possible, lots of the "bad guys" are going to be doing a lot of serious studying to figure out how to do it. Apple is going to have to make sure the next version is impregnable even to themselves.
SO, what he is saying is that the US should pass a law that the WHOLE WORLD must not use encryption of any sort (including words with special meanings) so that he can stop terrorist attacks all over the world.
Oh, wait, he doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole world. Let's just make US citizens less safe by creating a backdoor in ALL US encryption so that terrorists can steal all our money because they can see everything that is going on across the Internet, phones, and corporate networks (because of course no encrypted corporate VPNs allowed).
It will be up to the courts to decide, but it would seem that the tattoo becomes an identifying mark of the person much as hair color and birth marks. In the game, it is an identifying mark of the person, not a reproduction of the tattoo as in a separately salable item. It "should" end up being, if nothing else, a fair use transformation of an identifier of the person it is on into the game character. It does not affect the original work, and is not a replacement for the original work. It simply becomes an identifying mark of the person who presumably paid to have it affixed to their body. If the tattoo were not faithfully reproduced into the game characterization, that "famous person" could possibly no longer be recognizable without their identifiable marks.
Next, barbers are going to want to "own" the cut of my hair (or what's left of it anyway) because they cut it. Then, I'll have to get a signed release from my barber to have the family portrait taken for our family Christmas cards.
...and it unlocks some interesting design options: not only can a pair of shoes be customized, each shoe can be designed separately. Will people want to experiment with asymmetrical footwear?
There is no experiment here. My feet are only slightly different, however; there is a whole exchange program for amputees with only one real foot! Now they could could order just the shoe they need without trying to find someone else on the exchange program that needs the other foot and likes the same styles.