Yes, the scales are way off for personal vs corporate fines. That's why we're billing mothers $150,000 for sharing an mp3.
Let's get some perspective. Comcast made $6,816,000,000 in 2013; an $800,000 fine is 0.01174% which would translate to $6.09 if you were an American raking in the median $51,915 in 2013. Or you were a poor millionaire at the bottom of the 99% percentile it'd be $61.53 of your annual $525,000. I've had Comcast Bills that are lower...(ba dum tss) And that was just their revenue, we're off by a factor of ten from gross income apples to apples.
Or how about this specific infraction, not 'advertising' reasonable internet-only packages. Every time I looked it was around $20 more for Internet without TV; and I actually looked. It obviously didn't effect all their customers, but again the scale is tremendous. Lets call the overcharge $10 (half my observed $20) a month for three years. If 2,200 customers were over charged $360, this fine actually dinged Comcast $8,000. What are the odds more than .01% of Comcast's 22,000,000 subscribers wanted to buy Naked Internet? You bet you ass Comcast's accountants know, but we never will because they just tossed the watchdogs a nickle to stop looking.
I poked around and my host does provide SNI, which means I can config my sites to resolve over https with a big "THIS SITE IS LYING TO YOU" warning message. I'll have to look into the free certs to get rid of that.
I don't want to make anyone else's communications less secure, but it still seems like using certified mail when I just want to send a "wish you were here" postcard. Postcards are still a thing, right?
What about the sites that aren't businesses? I have around 10 domains I run as basic informational resources, some as placeholders for my nieces and nephews when they come of age. They're served as plaintext because that's what they are, not web 2.0, no interaction, just read what you see. Are my domain costs now going to double because you decided that my publicly available photos need to be transmitted securely?
I agree we're splitting hairs, though I think it's a useful conversation to have. Mostly because a lot of people are resigned to the fact that DRM comes packaged into so many things they "buy" these days. I'd posit that it may be reasonable to accept reasonable DRM in software or media (debatable I know), it's never reasonable to include a rights management scheme in a physical purchase like this.
I guess that's why calling them the same thing troubles me; spreading access control into new frontiers should be met with resistance. Maybe if I thought people avoided any DRM like the plague I wouldn't mind, but I worry most people won't care and these shenanigans will spread.
Hmm interesting, the "rights" in your interpretation of DRM is different than how I normally use it. I envision that digital "rights management" applies to exercise of rights by a copyright holder; specifically their right to exercise a limited monopoly of a fixed expression.
Hang on now, people were pirating in the analog age as well. To be truly effective we'd need to ban expressing things in permanent form; you know, anything that would be copyright-able.
It's the right thing to do, for too long the copyright industry has been destroying the business model of live theater, orchestral recitals, and living statues. Being unable to record and pass on the wealth of human knowledge is a small price to pay.
While the title of this bill seems to imply it, I don't think there's a provision that legalizes altering firmware on a device you own. This seems to be focused solely on being able to resell your property along with whatever original manufacturer's programming is included to make it work.
We'd still need specific exemptions to the DMCA from the Librarian of Congress to mod a game console, thermostat, refrigerator, etc. Or we'd need another law that generally allows decoupling the provided firmware from the device.